On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: <big snip> > But let's not talk nor think about per-branch stash for now. How does the > "keep" thing sound to people? I'm divided on this: OOH: I like the idea of having a keep command to mark stashes as valuable, making them not expire until dropped explicitly. Such a feature would also encourage user to go through their stashes every now and then and decide which ones are valuable, and which ones were indeed not that valuable and may be dropped. OTOH: I dislike the idea of 'forcing' the users to go through their stashes lest they lose their work. I don't see why anybody would want to do some work, stash it, and then "for no apparent reason" (the reason being not touching it for some time) lose it later. What if their system borks up and gives a wrong value as current time (say, 10 years in the future), all of a sudden their stashes are gone, and they might not even find out till it was too late. Sure, they'd lose some stale objects too, but that I can live with, those they did not ask git to take care of explicitly! The per-branch stashes sounds very nice, especially if you can get a 'git stash list --all' feature, that shows all stashes, regardless of what branch they are on. I myself would use such a per-branch feature most of the time, it would be nice to have a config option that defaults to that (making 'git stash' create a per-branch stash by default that is). -- 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
