Re: Make 'git stash list' more informative

From: Lucas Seiki Oshiro <lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 8, 2025, 02:06 UTC
Message-ID: <73A1707C-7B41-42C4-A530-E107FB8D5227@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqiknflj8j.fsf@gitster.g>

> After all, if they are related,
> you're more likely not keeping the work in the stash entries---you'd
> rather be making completed commit on the branch.

I don't if this the use case of Yuri, but in the past I kept a stash entry with some local development changes that shouldn't be committed and sent to the main repository. This is, I always applied that stash entry, did what I needed in my local environment, removed the code that was applied, then I committed the changes that should went to production.

It soon became hard to manage as I needed to use stash for other things. But hey, stash entries are commits, so I could somehow mimic its behavior without using stash itself! So, what I did:

1. Detached the HEAD:

$ git checkout --detach

2. Committed the local development changes. You can use the commit
message body to write a description of what those changes are.

$ git add my_changed_file $ git commit

3. Created a local tag, just for me:

$ git tag LOCAL_SETUP

4. Whenever I wanted to use that code, I just applied it by using:

$ git merge --squash LOCAL_SETUP $ git reset

This left the Git stash stack free for other uses and I could use it without worrying about the stash positions. If the problem is to have control over the stash, maybe the solution is to use the good old commits.

> ... this is an excellent suggestion.

Thanks :-)