Chris Torek <chris.torek@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > With all that said, I'd like to make one last suggestion, which > I think is a lot simpler: *stop using `git stash`*. Just make > a commit! ;-) If I recall correctly, the original design of "git stash" was "I save everything in the working tree, so that I can start working on an urgent request immediately, and then later restore everything", and there was no "--index" option for application, even though the stash entries were the W commit that is a merge of the I (index) commit and the B (base) commit. The "apply/pop --index" was a mere afterthought that does not work very well and made things more confusing. It wasn't meant to be used in anything complex, for which a separate branch with real commits were the way to go. There were some reasons (like, working tree side post-commit hooks that are not well written to distinguish temporary commits from real ones and send out notifications outside) that some folks wanted to avoid making a commit on a temporary branch and to them, having a bit more complex "stash" may have been a way for them to avoid triggering those poorly designed workflow around post-commit hooks. But with modern Git in this age with workflows and disciplines better understood, I agree that we should encourage use of more temporary branches with real commits. If there are reasons to cause developers fear of commitment (e.g., "my $CORP environment forces me to show every commit I make to CI server, which slows me down and wastes resources if I make many tentative commits only for snapshot"), they should be solved in a way that users do not have to fear commitments. Thanks.
