Re: The git newbie experience

From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: May 15, 2006, 05:31 UTC
Message-ID: <20060515053133.GB28068@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vy7x3x3ux.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Tommi Virtanen <tv@inoi.fi> writes:
> 
> > Oh, I'd love to have a quick stash, that's what we actually ended up
> > doing a lot. Although I'd rather see a real implementation use a branch
> > and not just a diff file, but.. yes please.
> 
> I'd rather do that with a diff file that can be used to do a
> 3-way (see how rebase does it with --full-index diff with am -3).
> No point creating and forgetting to remove a throw away branch
> and getting more complaints.

How is a quick stash different from a topic branch? I don't see any difference between the two. Your working directory was a topic branch, just an unnamed topic branch. Why don't you name it and deal with it once it is named?

I can see new users getting confused about what changes are in their quick stash or accidentially losing their quick stash by running it twice in a row.

Teaching new users to always work on a topic branch and committing before pulling/merging should be the favored workflow.

-- 
Shawn.