On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 05:29:58AM +0000, Benoit Sigoure wrote:
quoted text
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 5:16 AM, Aghiles wrote:
>=20
> >Hello,
> >
> >>who will run git stash clear? :)
> >
> >Yes you are right. By the way, in the context of merging into a
> >dirty tree, "git stash clear" seems to be a dangerous command:
> >there is a risk of loosing all your changes without a question
> >asked!
> >
> >I know unix is a harsh world but ...
>=20
> Be *very* careful, because it's worse than that.  If you run, say, `git=
=20
quoted text
> stash clean', instead of `clear' (that's the sort of typo that quickly=20
> slips through), then it will stash all your changes in a new stash named=
=20
quoted text
> "clean".  Once you realize you made a typo, you will most probably=20
> correct it and run `git stash clear' but...   Oops, you just wiped your=
=20
quoted text
> changes that were in the "clean" stash.
> That happened to me and other people I know, so now I'm utterly cautious=
=20
quoted text
> when I start a command with "git stash".
>=20
> As far as I remember, a patch was proposed to change this mis-behavior of=
=20
quoted text
> "git stash" (one could argue that it's a PEBCAK issue, but I really think=
=20
quoted text
> this command is *way* too dangerous) but I don't think it's been accepted=
=20
quoted text
> at this time.

  no it's a command issue. git stash <random non command name> should
_NOT_ be an alias to git stash save <random name>. Either the command
should be mandatory _or_ it should be a long option to avoid such kind
of conflicts.

  It's just a bad ui design.

--=20
=C2=B7O=C2=B7  Pierre Habouzit
=C2=B7=C2=B7O                                                madcoder@debia=
n.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org