From: Shawn Pearce Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 05:31:33 GMT Subject: Re: The git newbie experience Message-ID: <20060515053133.GB28068@spearce.org> In-Reply-To: <7vy7x3x3ux.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Junio C Hamano wrote: > Tommi Virtanen 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.