Hi Ben
On 19/08/2025 00:41, Ben Knoble wrote:
Le 18 août 2025 à 11:14, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
On 17/08/2025 17:08, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
To use it create your stash with "git stash push --keep-index" and then
use the script to pop the unstaged changes rather than using "git stash
pop". If the script proves to be useful then perhaps we could add an
"--unstaged" option to "git stash pop"
Hmph, would the behaviour useful enough that it should be always
enabled, without any new option? I strongly suspect that those who
worked on adding "--keep-index" option did not expect the user to be
mucking with the working tree files while "testing the staged stuff
by updating the working tree files to match it and nothing else",
and as long as the end-user stays within that originally designed
use case, nothing changes for them, no?
I can’t particularly comment on the script, but I do think the example
> in the docs should either just work or be adjusted to work.
I think the example works but may generate conflicts when the stash is
popped. One can argue that the conflicts are unnecessary because they
could be avoided by popping the unstaged changes but I don't think the
example is broken as such.
Yes it probably would make sense if we knew that the stash had been
created with "--keep-index". At the moment I don't think there is
>> anywhere to tell from looking at the stash if that's the case but we
>> could add a trailer to the commit message when we create the stash to
>> record that it was created with "--keep-index" and apply only the
>> unstaged changes when we see that trailer.>
This seems reasonable; I wonder if there would be any interaction
> with the stash import/export features? But perhaps those omitted the
> index anyway, I cannot recall.
It exports the stash commits as-is so it should be fine I think
Thanks
Phillip
