On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:41:42AM +0200, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > For me it is quite clear that stashing something _is_ asking for Git to > remember it. It's an explicit user action. It's a request to remember > something. Whether or not this is actually the best tool for the job of > long-term storage is much less important than the fact that the user > explicitly requested it. IMO this trumps all other factors. Just because > "stash" sounds quicker than "commit" doesn't make it any less of an > instruction to Git to store something. I think you missed the point of my email. I understand that it is clear to you that you are asking for permanent storage. However, it is equally clear to me (and to people involved in the design of git stash) that you are not asking for permanent storage, because that is not what git stash does. In other words, we are both proceeding from impressions of what the tool is meant to do, and what we are asking it to do. If you are making the argument that new users will be confused, that the documentation is insufficient, or that this is inconsistent with other aspects of git's interface, then those are good reasons to argue what stash _should_ do. That being said, see the exchanges between Andreas and myself elsewhere in the thread. I think there is a reasonable argument that "git stash" _is_ useful for long term storage, and that one way we can support that is removing the expiration. So while I prefer the expiration behavior, I think it is reasonable to sacrifice that to help adapt the tool for a different workflow. -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
