> Are you not reading? Are you not comprehending? Are you trolling? I answer these three questions with "NO". I find that the discussion is not finished yet. It was not achieved a common conclusion and consensus on all mentioned details so far. >> stashing isn't really something you'd want to do on a per-branch >> basis. Most of the point is that you stash away your changes, then >> switch to another branch, then restore your stash to your *current* >> working state sometime later. I have got different expectations. I would expect that there are enough intermediate work results available to justify a stash per branch so that unwanted "temporary" or "throw-away" commits can be avoided. > As you may know, "git checkout" carries local modifications to the new > working tree if there are no conflicts, so no explicit stash usage is > necessary in many cases. Various software projects have got different amounts of uncommitted changes between branches. > Anyway, I think it would be useful to be able to manage multiple > stashes rather than having to rely on just one global stash. However, > I imagine than explicit Work In Progress (WIP) commits as sketched > above would go a long way in keeping histories and workflows clean > and organized. I am also interested in improvements for this feature request. Does a "WIP" really need a commit to get the unfinished changes stored? Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html