Giuseppe
> I use stash when I want to move away from the current
> hacking because a new, more urgent change must be done
> somewhere else
Yes. That is exactly what stash is for. Temporary fixes. Now...
> Instead, I see a usecase for git snapshot for progressive
> temporary snapshot while working towards a more complex feature
> while needing temporary intermediate checkpoints
That's the idea. You could take a snapshot automatically every x
minutes. For example: I'm testing it taking a snapshot on every
build/compile of my project (and it is going fine, BTW).
> similar to what I currently achieve using git commit (a first
> time) and git commit --amend as my work progresses.
Except that, in this solution, you have only ONE saved state.
Also, it needs to be done manually. I wanted something automatic (like
John Wiegley's sugestion)
> In this respect, I wouldn't agree with the first difference you
> remarked, but that's just the usecase I have in mind.
Making another analogy: I see stash like a stack (you push/stash, and
after you pop/apply). And I don't see stacks as a good long-term
storages <g> (ok, you CAN 'cheat' and see all items other than the
first)
Snapshots would be like a queue: You can keep it entirely, or you can
keep only the last 'n' interesting snapshots, removing the others.
> I'm not sure I like the idea of creating these branches with these
> branchnames. What about using another refs/ subtree?
I'm also not sure <g>. The idea of refs/ is a good one, too (and could
solve the problem of 'where to store the original index?'). But my
first idea of using branches was to avoid a load of another
'maintenance' commands ('snapshot list', 'snapshot delete', etc) and
to use a more known facility (branches).
Best regards,
Fabio.
--
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
