On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:56:56AM +0200, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
> > 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?
Well, two things here:
1. I was being somewhat tounge in cheek with that comment. If you read
the rest of the email, I was trying to figure out reasons why
people are using "git stash" for long-term storage, to see if we
could improve the branch interface or find a middle ground between
temporary stashes and branches.
2. You don't need perfect foresight. Sometime in the thirty days (but
probably about 5 minutes later) you realize "oh, this is some
stashed work that I'm not going to deal with for a while" and you
promote it to a topic branch.
But then, I have good reason to want works-in-progress to become
topic branches: I can then push them to a location which is backed
up, and from which I can retrieve them if I want to access them
from a different machine. Not everybody uses the same workflow.
If you don't see any other benefits to topic branches, then the
promotion is just a pain.
-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
