From: Steffen Prohaska Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:41:47 GMT Subject: Re: Stashing untracked files Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <46FF1F1E.2050000@theory.org> On Sep 30, 2007, at 5:59 AM, Neil Macneale wrote: > git stash is an acknowledgment that not everything needs to be > committed, and sometimes working source trees are messy. Prior to > the stash command, I just accepted that I'd need to commit > everything and do some maintenance to un-commit those changes. > stash is awesome for me and the realities of the way I need to > work. IMHO, it would be the best thing since sliced bread if it > handled untracked files. I agree, it could be a great tool. Even only to make me feel better before running 'git clean' on a larger source tree when I was to lazy to scan 'git clean -n' in detail. BTW, I don't have results of the builds in my work tree but keep them in a separate directory. Nearly everything in the work tree is 'real' source code, maybe cluttered with some backups or tmp files. > If this is really just a problem for me, I can write a shell script > to do the dirty work. I just wonder if it is a common enough use > case that it merits support in the tool itself. I think it would be useful. Here is a problem I ran into last week: A merge failed because it wanted to add a file not tracked by the current branch. At first I didn't fully appreciate this fact and thought that 'git stash' could help. But to do so, it would need to store the _untracked_ file and remove it from the work tree. This would allow the merge to succeed. Current stash didn't really help. Steffen