Re: Proposal for git stash rename

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 4, 2013, 21:40 UTC
Message-ID: <7vbod4tynt.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <loom.20130104T192132-16@post.gmane.org>

Micheil Smith <micheil@brandedcode.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

>> 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.

I have a feeling that "need" in "need for this feature" is a misspelt "want", that occasional misspelling of the stash message may give users awkward feelings when viewing "git stash list" output but not severe enough to make them unable to identify which stash entry holds which change, and that it is sufficient to pop and then restash if a user *really* cares.