Re: "man git-stash" explanation of "--include-untracked" and "--all" seems ambiguous

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> writes:

> This is fine when --include-untracked is specified first, as --all
> implies --include-untracked, but I guess the behaviour could be a bit
> surprising if --all is specified first and --include-untracked later
> on the command line.
>
> Changing this could possibly break someone that just adds parameters
> to their 'git stash' invocation, but I'm tempted to say allowing both
> at once is a bug, and change it to make git die when both are
> specified.

I am on the fence.

If this were --include=untracked vs --include=all, then I'd say your
suggestion will violate the usual expectation of "on the command
line, last one wins", but "--include-untracked" and "--all" are
spelled very differently, and may not look all that related to a
casual reader, so the expectation for "the last one wins" might be
weaker than usual.

But once we start complaining to a command line that has both,
saying they are mutually exclusive, people will realize that they
are very much closely related options, even though spelled quite
differently.  And at that point, they will find it very unreasonable
that we do not follow the usual "the last one wins" rule but error
out X-<.

If I really cared deeply about these two options [*1*], I would
think that the ideal longer term direction would be to introduce
--include={untracked,all-crufts} to replace and deprecate the
current two options.  And then we make sure --include=* forms follow
the usual "last one wins" rule.


[Footnote]

*1* I personally don't, but that does not mean I will block efforts
    by others who do to make this part of the system better.