Re: [RFC] stash --continue

[Samuel Lijin <sxlijin@gmail.com>]

>> At least `git stash pop --continue` would be consistent with all other
>> `--continue` options in Git that I can think of...

> Alas, I disagree!

I'm with Johannes here. "git stash" sans subcommand is pretty
explicitly defined as "git stash save", so by similar logic, "git
stash --continue", if anything, would be "git stash save --continue".

I do agree that there's a slight problem with hunting down consistency
in implementations of --continue since there aren't other usages that
involve subcommands (rebase, cp, merge) but I can't think of "git
stash" as a completely specified command, whereas I do see "git stash
pop" and "git stash apply" as completely specified.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com> wrote:
> On 2017-01-18 11:34 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Marc Branchaud wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-01-16 05:54 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Stephan Beyer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> a git-newbie-ish co-worker uses git-stash sometimes. Last time he
>>>>> used "git stash pop", he got into a merge conflict. After he
>>>>> resolved the conflict, he did not know what to do to get the
>>>>> repository into the wanted state. In his case, it was only "git add
>>>>> <resolved files>" followed by a "git reset" and a "git stash drop",
>>>>> but there may be more involved cases when your index is not clean
>>>>> before "git stash pop" and you want to have your index as before.
>>>>>
>>>>> This led to the idea to have something like "git stash
>>>>> --continue"[1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More like "git stash pop --continue". Without the "pop" command, it
>>>> does not make too much sense.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not?  git should be able to remember what stash command created the
>>> conflict.  Why should I have to?  Maybe the fire alarm goes off right
>>> when I
>>> run the stash command, and by the time I get back to it I can't remember
>>> which operation I did.  It would be nice to be able to tell git to "just
>>> finish off (or abort) the stash operation, whatever it was".
>>
>>
>> That reeks of a big potential for confusion.
>>
>> Imagine for example a total Git noob who calls `git stash list`, scrolls
>> two pages down, then hits `q` by mistake. How would you explain to that
>> user that `git stash --continue` does not continue showing the list at the
>> third page?
>
>
> Sorry, but I have trouble taking that example seriously.  It assumes such a
> level of "noobness" that the user doesn't even understand how standard
> command output paging works, not just with git but with any shell command.
>
>> Even worse: `git stash` (without arguments) defaults to the `save`
>> operation, so any user who does not read the documentation (and who does?)
>> would assume that `git stash --continue` *also* implies `save`.
>
>
> Like the first example, your user is trying to "continue" a command that is
> already complete.  It's like try to do "git rebase --continue" when there's
> no rebase operation underway.
>
> Now, maybe there is some way for "git stash save" (implied or explicit) to
> stop partway through the operation.  I can't imagine such a situation (out
> of disk space, maybe?), particularly where the user would expect "git stash
> save" to leave things in a half-finished state.  To me "git stash save"
> should be essentially all-or-nothing.
>
> However, if there were such a partial-failure scenario, then I think it
> would be perfectly reasonable for "git stash --continue" to finish the save
> operation, assuming that the failure condition has been resolved.
>
>> If that was not enough, there would still be the overall design of Git's
>> user interface. You can call it confusing, inconsistent, with a lot of
>> room for improvement, and you would be correct. But none of Git's commands
>> has a `--continue` option that remembers the latest subcommand and
>> continues that. To introduce that behavior in `git stash` would disimprove
>> the situation.
>
>
> I think it's more the case that none of the current continuable commands
> have subcommands (though I can't think of all the continuable or abortable
> operations offhand, so maybe I'm wrong).  I think we're discussing new UI
> ground here.
>
> And since the pattern is already "git foo --continue", it seems more
> consistent to me for it to be "git stash --continue" as well. Especially
> since there can be only one partially-complete stash sub-operation at one
> time (per workdir, at least).  So there's no reason to change the pattern
> just for the stash command.
>
> Think of it this way:  All the currently continuable/abortable commands put
> the repository in a shaky state, where performing certain other operations
> would be ill advised.  Attempting to start a rebase while a merge conflict
> is unresolved, for example.  IIRC, git actually tries to stop users from
> shooting their feet in this way.
>
> And so it should be for the stash operation:  If applying a stash yields a
> conflict, it has to be resolved or aborted before something like a rebase or
> merge is attempted.  It doesn't matter which stash subcommand created the
> shaky situation.
>
> In the long run, I think there's even the possibility of generic "git
> continue" and "git abort" commands, that simply continue or abort the
> current partially-complete operation, whatever it is.  (Isn't that the
> ultimate goal of all the "sequencer" work?  I admit I have not been
> following that effort.)
>
>> With every new feature, it is not enough to consider its benefits. You
>> always have to take the potential fallout into account, too.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>> At least `git stash pop --continue` would be consistent with all other
>> `--continue` options in Git that I can think of...
>
>
> Alas, I disagree!
>
>                 M.
>