From: Michael Haggerty Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 08:38:16 GMT Subject: Re: Proposal for git stash rename Message-ID: <50ED2C78.1030300@alum.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <7vbod4tynt.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On 01/04/2013 10:40 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Micheil Smith writes: > >>> This patch implements a "git stash rename" using a new >>> "git reflog update" command that updates the message associated >>> with a reflog entry. >> ... >> I note that this proposal is now two years old. A work in progress patch was >> requested, however, after one was given this thread ended. I'm also finding >> a need for this feature; > > The whole point of reflog is that it is a mechanism to let users to > go safely back to the previous state, by using a file that is pretty > much append-only. It feels that a mechanism to "rewrite" one goes > completely against that principle, at least to me. The implementation of "git stash" itself seems to violate your principle, by storing its branches-that-are-not-branches within a mutable reflog. Just an observation... Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/