From: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 21:08:24 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stash: add 'rename' subcommand
Message-ID: <allISNh-b6Sc6y5-@fruit.crustytoothpaste.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqh5lyhlp6.fsf@gitster.g>

On 2026-07-16 at 17:46:13, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Asking for the actual use case is indeed very useful, and I highly
> appreciate the nudge.
> 
> "I cannot reword the message shown in 'git stash list' without this
> change" is not a use case.  It would be far more useful to know
> what real-world task you are blocked from accomplishing just
> because you cannot reword a misspelled entry in 'git stash list'.
> 
> Personally, I cannot think of any such roadblock.  If I find that
> a stash entry is worth tweaking right now, I would probably
> create a new branch for the task, unstash it there, and either
> make further changes or record the exact state with an updated
> message to help my future self.  After all, having a branch I
> can start working on immediately is far more useful than having
> the same stash entry with its spelling corrected.

I have a large number of stashes in my git.git repository (211 at
present) and it may be that I, in a mad rush to solve some problem or
another, went with the default message.  I do this kind of thing with
repositories at work all the time.  But it's inconvenient to have to
search through `git stash list -p` to see which change it was and which
stash I need to pop to resume my work, so I can see the utility of this
approach.

In my case, the stash is likely on an existing branch (such as my
sha256-interop branch), so I don't want to create another branch right
now, but I do want to distinguish a couple of different stashes.

Of course, I don't know what Emin's use case is, but I think it would in
fact be useful to have and I can see myself using it. If my use case is
valuable to others, anyone is free to summarize it in the commit message
as a justification.
-- 
brian m. carlson (they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA