git stash needs another sub-command. Often I want to stash ALL unstaged changes, including new (not yet added) files. This is almost possible with git stash -k, except it does not stash new files, which is very important.

Enter git stash unstaged. So now I’ve stashed the unstaged changes. That is, I’ve stashed all the changes I do not want included in the next commit. I can now run my tests as I always do before I commit… That’s what you do too, right? Oops, the tests fail because I forgot to add a file, which now happens to be in the stash. At this point I do not know of a way to get my stashed changes back exactly as they were before I stashed them, that is, unstaged. It’s really bad if there are some files that are partially staged (i.e., only certain hunks were staged), because they will create conflicts if I attempt to apply the stash right now. This should be possible. There should be a way to get things back exactly as they were before I stashed them. The missing command is git stash pop unstaged, which applies all of the changes from the stash and puts them in the unstaged (off-stage? pre-stage?) area, without conflicts.

In summary:

• git stash unstaged – stash all changes that are not currently staged, including new and removed files
• git stash pop unstaged – pop the top stash as unstaged changes

This would greatly improve my workflow when I get over-zealous and start changing more than I want to commit at one time (happens all the time). It would make it much easier to isolate those changes into individual, logical commits.

Bootstrapping a Python Virtual Environment

This response to the question regarding top secret intelligence (paraphrased) “we (the taxed) pay for it, why can’t we know?” also gave me pause for reflection:

Some of the information comes from people who are secretly providing it, and who are the only people who could *possibly* provide it. If the information became widely known then they would be hurt by the people who they are betraying in favor of “our side”. It would be messed up to reveal the information and leave them to the wolves.

This is actually a problem with “intelligence” in general — that you can’t even *act* on the source without potentially compromising them because that would be another way to reveal that you knew something that came from the source.

The practical upshot is omniscience with almost no ability to act, except in cases where the value of the action exceeds the total future value of the uncompromised source.

While interesting, I’m not sure I agree that it’s worth keeping secrets on behalf of the source. For one, I don’t believe our intelligence gatherers are anywhere near “omniscient”—that’s just hubris. And why should we seek to know that which is harmful to those who would divulge it? This strand of logic is grounded in deception. Would we not gain more by seeking to be less secretive, less fearful, more free?