From: Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:40:50 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-gc: skip stashes when expiring reflogs
Message-ID: <19C06D62-966A-4626-A620-2281A7CAA2B6@wincent.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vtzfxwtt0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

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