El 13/6/2008, a las 11:47, Junio C Hamano escribió:
If there is a strong correlation between the two, one possible
solution
would be to introduce refs/stashes/$branch/ namespace that holds each
stash as an individual, numbered ref under it. They will live forever
until the user explicitly asks for their removal. If we go this
route, we
would need a few niceties such as a way to move a "quick stash" that
is
represented as a reflog entry into a "longlived stash" that is
represented
as an individual ref under refs/stashes/$branch/.
But let's not talk nor think about per-branch stash for now. How
does the
"keep" thing sound to people?
Sounds a little bit over-engineered to me.
So, "stash" is intended for short-term storage, but by adding a "keep"
option you're officially blessing it for long-term storage as well.
And the interface that you propose, explicitly marking stuff as "for
keeps" and being able to move stuff from "temp" to "keep" sounds quite
complicated.
I honestly think that the simplest solution from both an
implementation and a usage perspective is just to keep everything that
is stashed until the user clears it out. If you use a push/pop model
then your stash will never get cluttered up with garbage, and if you
do abuse it for long-term storage you'll start to notice that the
stash list is inconveniently large, thus hinting that perhaps you are
abusing stash in ways that the designers never intended.
Cheers,
Wincent
--
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
