On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:53:20PM +0100, Jonas Hartmann wrote: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3040833/stash-only-one-file-out-of-multiple-files-that-have-changed-with-git#comment32451416_3040833 > > Could it be possible to have "git stash [filename][filename]...", to > stash only single files? > There seems to be a broad community desire.
I think this would be useful. You can pick and choose with "git stash -p", but I have still often wanted "git stash -p [filename]". There is one problem, though: any non-option arguments to "git stash save" are interpreted as the stash message. So just: git stash save file would break backwards compatibility. Annoyingly, so would: git stash save -- file which uses the "--" to let you have a message which starts with a dash. Personally, I think this is a pretty terrible interface. Besides the fact that I have never written a stash message in all my years of using git, it's totally inconsistent with the rest of git (which would use "-m" for the message, and treat arguments as pathspecs). So it might be worth changing, but we'd probably have to deal with the backwards compatibility fallout, have a deprecation period, etc. As for "git stash" without "save", there is magic to rewrite: git stash [opts] into git stash save [opts] but it explicitly does not allow non-option arguments. So: git stash foo is an error (and not unreasonably, since "git stash list" creates an ambiguity problem). Perhaps: git stash -- foo could be allowed to treat "foo" as a filename. There wouldn't be any backwards compatibility problems, though it would be weird and inconsistent to be able to specify filenames via the "shortcut" invocation, but not with "git stash save". -Peff
