On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Wincent Colaiuta <win@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> So yes, branches _are_ better and more appropriate for long term >> storage than stashes, but even so I don't think it's right for us to >> risk throwing away information that the user explicitly stashed and >> expected Git to look after for them. > > Yes, but for a limited amount of time. > A limited amount of time? Why is that? Can you give a rationale which at least addresses Wincent's points? It's bad enough that 'git stash clear' drops all pending stashes w/out at least echoing them (the way git stash drop does), but what is the rationale for having git _ever_ forget information which it was specifically requested to remember? I know that stash is implemented in terms of reflogs, but that seems to me an implementation detail which ought not leak out. Especially if that leakage ends up forgetting potentially important data. - Eric -- 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
