Sverre Rabbelier a écrit : > > 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. I agree. And even without that: > 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! it seems pretty strange to ask the user for a confirmation: are you sure you want to keep what you ask us to store in the stash? > 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). I think the same and would prefer per-branch stash by default because I don't see a real use of a "global" one but maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps, a config option could make everyone happy. :-) Olivier. -- 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
