On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > So I fundamentally think that all of these contortions are because > moving things to the stash bucket is not as featureful as moving them to > the index bucket. And there's no reason for it, since we can use the > _same_ tools to do both. > > Here's a somewhat hackish implementation of "git stash -i" that just relies > on "add -i": Are all features for moving changes to stash bi-directional in your implementation? Can we move a hunk out of stash, just as easily as we can move one in? I think this is an essential property of a good implementation of this workflow. As to which way people like to think and work, in terms of re-applying changes from a fresh state one at a time, or just pushing off changes they don't want, I think ensuring bi-directionality in the tools for moving changes back and forth will ensure that all such scenarios will be equally well supported. It does seem to me at this point that extending stash functionality is a reasonable way to approach supporting this type of workflow. Thanks, Bob -- 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
