On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 09:16:42AM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote: >> To me, long-living stashes are useful because I can all of a sudden be >> pulled away from something I'm working on and set to work on something >> entirely different for up to 6 months (so far we haven't had a single >> emergency project run longer than that). It doesn't happen a lot, but >> it *does* happen. > > So of course my first question is "then why didn't you use a branch?" :) Because nobody / not everybody has perfect foresight, sometimes you don't know in advance that what you thought was going to be a temporary stash will turn into a long lived stash. What you are saying is that really you should always create a branch, just in case your temporary stash proved to be more long-lived than thought? -- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier -- 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
