Re: Apparent bug in 'git stash push <subdir>' loses untracked files

[Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@gmail.com>]

Hi Thomas,

On 14/12/2017 00:14, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> 
> > For what it`s worth, using `git stash save <subdir>` instead seems
> > to (still) work as expected...
> 
> I think that depends on what you expect ;) 'git stash save <subdir>' 
> will create a stash of the whole working directory with the message 
> "<subdir>". So while it would indeed work for the presumably 
> simplified example Reid provided, it would not do what you'd expect
> if there are any tracked and modified files outside of the <subdir>.
> 
> In that case 'git stash save <subdir>' would include the tracked
> files outside of <subdir>, while what I assume Reid wanted is to keep
> them in place, and only stash the files in <subdir>.

Indeed, I didn`t pay enough attention to the fact that even `git 
stash save\push` produced different output messages, the difference 
being exactly automatic (push) versus provided (save) stash message.

And I did use `git stash save <message>` in the past... :$ Not too 
often, I guess.

> > but on the other hand, `git-stash`[1] manpage seems not to mention
> > this usage ("save" with "pathspec")?
> 
> "stash save" with "pathspec" doesn't exist, and it will probably
> never exist. We decided to introduce a new "push" verb for 'git
> stash' because the command line for 'git stash save' takes a message
> as its last argument, instead of taking the message with a -m flag
> like other commands do. Introducing a pathspec argument for "git
> stash save" would have either broken backward compatibility, or it
> would have had some syntax that's very inconsistent with other git
> commands.

Yeah, I`m aware of the "transition", thus teaching myself to use `git 
stash push` lately. That`s also what made me curious to try out the 
"old" `git stash save` behavior, but obviously in a bit hasty manner.

Sorry for the confusion, and thanks, for both clarification 
and your work.

Regards, Buga