Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > So of course my first question is "then why didn't you use a branch?" :) > > I'm not, by the way, trying to say "there is no good reason not to use a > branch." I am trying to figure out what the reasons are, because I > wonder if there is a more useful abstraction we can come up for handling > this situation. > > Reading your (and others') responses, it seems like there are two > things: > > 1. Stashing is about saying "save everything about where I am now with > no hassle". IOW, it's one command, you don't have to decide what > goes and what stays, and you can pull it back out with one command. > And maybe there is a psychological component that you are not ready > to "commit" such a work-in-progress (I am extrapolating here, but I > know that when I first started with git, I was hesitant to commit > because of my experience with other systems). [...] There is one thing that is easy to do with a stash (due to the way it is implemented, even if it complicates it a bit), and you CANNOT do (without much hassle) with branches, namely saving state where _index_ state matters, either partial commit (or just added files), or conflict resolve in progress. I'm not sure how useful such a thing can be after a month, but if project has slow rate of development (and developer can deal with such "ahlfway" state decently when restored), it can happen... -- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git -- 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
