> My point is just that some people actually assume that work done > while having one branch checked out is related to that branch and > that branch alone and that switching a branch should put that work > on hold. Unfortunately for me some of these people at day-job have > also just assumed Git can read their mind and forget to switch > branches at the proper times, resulting in unrelated work mashed > together for days straight (and criss-crossed merge to hell and back) > before they call me and say "MAKEITWORKNOW". > </rant> As I have learned over the years, assumptions can be fatal. I can not use something until I wrap my head around it and test it. Especially for managing something in production! So far, this has been the only problem/mis-understanding. > It isn't unreasonable to want Git to save uncommitted work for the > current branch and then you switch to another, ending up with a > clean working directory when you finally get there. Today we have > git-stash to help you with this, but I'm thinking maybe we want to > connect git-checkout with it? That would be great as a default action when using checkout! +Switching branches without having to commit improves work flow. +Fewer commits = cleaner logs. +More Intuitive! I am currently using git-1.5.1.6, which apparently does not have git-stash. I will upgrade and check it out. Cheers, -- Brian Scott Dobrovodsky - 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
