Junio C Hamano wrote: > Brandon Casey <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> The fact that this caveat is not mentioned anywhere in the stash >> documentation or anywhere in the commit log related to git-stash.sh makes >> me think that this idea of 'a limited amount of time' was possibly not a >> design decision but merely a side effect of stashes being implemented using the >> reflog. Of course I didn't pay any attention to the discussions about stash >> back when it was implemented, so I may definitely be wrong. > > I do not deeply care either way, but perhaps > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/50737/focus=50863 Ahh, you reveal that you were not always a supporter of "stash per branch" in this thread. :) > and yes use of reflog was more or less conscious thing and the mechanism > is very much temporary in nature I see. Thanks for the reference. > (see the use case stated in the starting > thread). Yes, I understand the use case. I am just not convinced that a persistent stash would be detrimental, but I also do not care deeply. >> it were true that if I were to create a stash today, and then be surprised 30 >> days from now when I do a 'stash list' and find the stash is still there. >> Something along the lines of: >> >> $ git stash save my work >> # wait 30 days >> $ git stash list >> stash@{0}: WIP on master: my work >> >> # and if my reaction were something like: >> # hmm, that's strange, what is that stash still doing there? It's been 30 days, >> # it should be gone. > > We could prune before running "git stash list", but why bother? The fact > you can see it is like a bonus. hmph :) -brandon -- 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
