Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1] stash: implement '--staged' option for 'push' and 'save'

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:28:52 -0700

Sergey Organov <[email-masked]> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:
>>
>>> More importantly...
>>>
>>> Whenever I think about a new "feature", I try to come up with a
>>> story in which the feature effectively improves the end-user's life,
>>> how it fits in the larger picture, and enables something that is
>>> hard to do by combining other tools.
>>>
>>> The kind of "story" I would aim for is like this.  Suppose we were
>>> selling not "git stash -S" but "git stash -k". ...
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> So in short, I do not think I am strongly opposed to "git stash -S"
>> existing, since I did find one use case story that it could be used,
>> but I do think it is redundant and unnecessary.
>
> Redundant? Yes. Unnecessary? Yes. Useful? Yes. ;-)
>
> I took the steps to propose the new feature after yet another round of
> "how do I quickly store this tiny bit of changes I just figured I need
> for later, out of bunch of VIWIP changes?"
>
>   git stash --staged
>
> is exactly the (currently missing) answer for me, as I have pretty
> interactive tool to stage diff chunks always handy.
>
> What's your answer, I wonder?

I am the one who questions the usefulness of "stash --staged" and
thinks "add -p", "stash -k", test, "commit" is a much better way to
solve the "we have a messy working tree and we want to create a
clean multi-step end result out of it" problem.

I consider "stash --staged" as a solution in search of a problem, so
you'd need to ask somebody else for a problem that "stash --staged"
is suitable for.

And "I want to stash away this tiny bit" is better solved by *not*
doing "git add" it to the index and then stashing.  Rather, I'd just
do "commit" so that I can "rebase -i" to reorganize these bits
later.  Of course, to test the "tiny bit" standalone, I may use
"stash -k" first, but do not see such a senario shows the merit of
using "stash --staged" over other tools.

> That said, I'm also curious what story, if any, do you have for 'git
> stash --patch', as exactly the same story should be applicable to
> proposed 'git stash --staged', as far as I can see.

"stash --patch" is also "Meh" from my point of view.  I do not
strongly object to its existence, it may be a OK tool for a small
scale use, but I suspect it would be more frustrating than helpful
to users when applied in a larger workflow story, just like I view
"git stash --staged".

Thanks.