On 2025-05-19 at 21:28:07, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I do not offhand have a strong objection for the _feature_, but if > the implementation uses the default "stash", that is a bit > worrysome, as anybody, even a script, using "reset --hard" would add > a new stash entry, shifting the end-user's expectation of what the > Nth stash entry records behind user's back. Yes, this would need to live under a different ref. We could use the same stash machinery, though, with a small refactor. > Doesn't "reset --hard" add record to the reflog already, by the way? > I agree that a way to recover the local modifications that "reset > --hard" is designed to get rid of is a good addition. I just do not > know what the best vehicle to store the local modifications is. It does, at least when it changes HEAD. But it doesn't preserve the local modifications anywhere, which is really the request that's being made. -- brian m. carlson (they/them) Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
