Re: [PATCH] Implement "git stash branch <newbranch> <stash>"

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 3, 2008, 04:12 UTC
Message-ID: <7v63rn61yj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080703022316.GA25433@toroid.org>

Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@toroid.org> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

> +branch <branchname> [<stash>]::
> +
> +	Creates and checks out a new branch named `<branchname>` starting from
> +	the commit at which the `<stash>` was originally created, applies the
> +	changes recorded in `<stash>` to the new working tree, and drops the
> +	`<stash>` if that completes successfully. When no `<stash>` is given,
> +	applies the latest one.
> ++
> +This is useful if the branch on which you ran `git stash save` has
> +changed enough that `git stash apply` fails due to conflicts. Since
> +the stash is applied on top of the commit that was HEAD at the time
> +`git stash` was run, it restores the originally stashed state with
> +no conflicts.

Perhaps we would want to replay the stash always with --index for this application. By definition this will be conflict-free both in the index and in the working tree.

I've also toyed with an idea to make <branchname> optional, and detach the HEAD if <branchname> is not given. It would be a useful mode of operation but one problem is that it is _not_ an operation that should be called "branch" anymore.