On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 06:26:28AM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > Why are branches better and more appropriate? > Is it because the developer who first thought of stashes didn't think they'd > be used for any halflong period of time? > Is it because there are actions you can do on a branch that you can't do on > a stash? > > Who's to say what's appropriate and not? If I explicitly tell a system to > save something for me I damn well expect it to be around when I ask that > same system to load it for me too. I think we are getting into circular reasoning here (on both sides): Branches are better, because they don't expire. Stashes expire, because branches are a better way to do what you want. Stashes shouldn't expire, because the user told the stash to save information. The user considers it a "save" because stashes hold things forever. Stashes hold things forever because they shouldn't expire. In other words, yes, the developer who thought of stashes didn't think they'd be used for a long period of time. That's _why_ they were designed as they were. The status quo argument says "this is what a stash is, because that is how it is implemented." So I would expect people in favor of the change to say "here is why long-term stashes are useful." And I would expect such an argument to address the fact that we don't simply want to recreate branches (badly). In other words, what is the compelling use case that makes people want to stash for months at a time? -Peff -- 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
