Brian Scott Dobrovodsky <brian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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! Well, a lot of "Git old timers" like the current action of keeping the tree dirty during a switch. But maybe we could also teach `git checkout` that a user specified configuration option can cause it to automatically stash/unstash unless -m is supplied. Or something. Patches are always welcome. ;-) > +Switching branches without having to commit improves work flow. > +Fewer commits = cleaner logs. Well, I'm not sure that matters here. Typically Git users will make heavy use of commit rewriting features (e.g. `git commit --amend` or `git rebase -i`) to cleanup changes on a side branch before they submit them to the mainline. This makes it easy to commit all of the time and not worry about how the resulting logs will look. Plus they can have look like they have some serious code-fu and always write things perfectly the first time. :) Indeed, before git-stash came about I parked changes on a branch using the following technique: $ git commit -a -m PARK ; # stash on "demo" $ git checkout master ; # tree is now clean $ git checkout demo ; # back on demo $ git reset --soft HEAD^ ; # undo the stash No messy history, nice neat per-branch stash. Oh, you can do that in Git 1.3. And even earlier probably. I actually still use this trick from time to time as I find it flowing out of my fingers far easier than git-stash. -- Shawn. - 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
