Re: [RFC] git stash: add porcelain for sharing stashes through remotes

From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Oct 5, 2026, 08:21 UTC
Message-ID: <7012706b-516b-4cd9-abf3-0144093e0779@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKPibBx6364BcB2nqyQ7jhTaQMaUuR2TNKzZ-9H8VopcRjXbZw@mail.gmail.com>

Am 05.10.26 um 10:03 schrieb Hanan Arshad:

> The use case I have in mind is narrower: temporarily handing off an
> unfinished working state to another clone or developer, without first
> turning that state into a normal branch workflow.

Understood. But you don't do this ten times a day, so...

Show 7 quoted lines

> The question I am trying to answer is therefore not really "should
> stashes become collaborative objects?", but rather:
> 
> Is there value in providing a small convenience command around an
> already-supported stash transport workflow, so users do not have to
> understand and manually compose the lower-level ref/export/import
> steps?

... why do you need convenience? A simple export plus a push or even just a single push command are all that is required today.

So, IMHO, there is zero reason to upgrade stashes so that they can achieve the exact same thing that we can already do with branches.

(Hence, if indeed you do share your half-finsihed work ten times a day, then, please, by all means, use the right tool for the task: put your work on a branch, not in a stash.)

-- Hannes