I see your point, but commits force me to detail the changes (and I know
it's good practice).
I just want to give the user another option rather than committing their
changes.
If we talking about commits, why use stash at all? why not just commit,
push it/create and switch branch, and go back?
I know my argument is not so smart, but I just want to highlight that
everything can be done with commits, as this what makes git so powerful :)
Thanks for you reply!
Nadav
On 18/06/2023 12:47, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 12:05:21PM +0300, Nadav Goldstein wrote:
Let me try to explain my motivation:
I heavily use stash to set quick points in my code so I could go back
to them (during thought process), and I want to store my changes
quickly and continue from there.
so why are you (ab-)using stash for that, rather than just committing
each time, and later cleaning it by using `reset [--mixed]` and
re-committing (or using `rebase --interactive`)? the reflog holds
information about "lost" commits (the stash is just a somewhat special
reflog, too).
regards,
ossi
