list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Sergey Organov <>
To: Junio C Hamano <>
Cc: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <>,
	"Elijah Newren" <>,
	"Gábor Farkas" <>,
	"Git Mailing List" <>
Subject: Re: git switch/restore, still experimental?
Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 18:19:51 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqk0oc1vzj.fsf@gitster.g> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 06 May 2021 10:39:28 +0900")

Junio C Hamano <> writes:

> Sergey Organov <> writes:
>> Isn't --merge a different (and inferior) way to achieve what we already
>> have elsewhere with --autostash? Does it make sense to get rid of --merge
>> here in favor of --autostash?
> Not really.

I tend to disagree. 

> The "--autostash" might appear to be applicable to cases that can
> induce larger conflict,

To me (auto)stash is not about amount of possible conflicts, and even
not about conflicts at all, but rather about data safety. (Auto)stash is
reversible: just get to original branch, apply the stash, and you are
basically back where you was.

Besides, --autostash shouldn't necessarily even imply --autorestore. I
can easily imagine a mode when --autorestore is fired only when one
returns to the branch where --autostash has been performed, leaving to
the user the responsibility of applying the stash to the new branch, if
she really needs it.

OTOH, --merge sounds more like infamous "cvs update". Keep fingers
crossed (or rather do a backup) and push the button, – Git will do its
best not to clobber your content, but all bets are off.

> but once the diversion gets larger than what one comfortably can deal
> with "checkout -m",

The problem is that I suspect there is no such margin. I'm simply
uncomfortable with -m. It doesn't sound safe to me no matter what. I'll
rather stash manually than use -m.

> the user is better off to work by forking a branch there and create a
> WIP commit, than deal with the stash.

Why? This looks like unjustified complication. All this is temporary
enough for the stash proper, – one just forgets about it immediately
most of times, as things typically go rather smooth anyway.

> So if anything, I'd rather get rid of "--autostash" than "-m", to help
> users get in a better work habit.

I have as much as 3 points to oppose to this:

1. Who decides which work habit is better? At the same time, data safety
and recovery are unprejudiced goals to be aimed at.

2. Unlike --merge, --autostash is universal. Whatever job is to be done,
get your changes to a safe place before continuing, to be able get them
back later. It'd be excellent if we had global autostash mode support,
especially if stash were capable to save/restore entire state of
everything. Sounds like "Undo" in text editors, or like automatic backup
before OS update.

3. Dunno about --merge, but I'm sure --autostash came from real life. I
see it all the time how users do "git stash; git pull; git stash pop"
sequence. It's just natural, and if it suits them, who are we to decide
what's "better" for them? I believe Git should continue to provide
convenient tools that help to get the job done, rather than trying to
fight "improper" habits and/or workflows.

Overall, to me --autostash is clear winner :)

That said, I somehow feel this has been already discussed to death when
--autostash was introduced.

-- Sergey Organov

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-06 15:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-04 10:32 Gábor Farkas
2021-05-04 19:54 ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-05  3:46 ` Elijah Newren
2021-05-05  4:01   ` Eric Sunshine
2021-05-05 11:09   ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-05 17:46     ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-05 19:26       ` Sergey Organov
2021-05-05 19:48     ` Sergey Organov
2021-05-06  1:39       ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-06 15:19         ` Sergey Organov [this message]
2021-05-06 10:05       ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-06 14:29         ` Sergey Organov
2021-05-06  2:16     ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-06 10:02       ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-10 11:04         ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-10 18:27           ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-06 11:00       ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-06 15:26         ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-06 21:55           ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-10 10:58             ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-11  7:15               ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-05 14:18   ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-05-05 14:26     ` Randall S. Becker
2021-05-06  1:15       ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-05 17:52     ` Felipe Contreras

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: git switch/restore, still experimental?' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).