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
