Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-gc: skip stashes when expiring reflogs
- From
- Sverre Rabbelier <alturin@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 13, 2008, 08:56 UTC
- Message-ID
- <bd6139dc0806130156o747fc128hbe28440ed4d228d4@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20080613074257.GA513@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 09:16:42AM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote: >> To me, long-living stashes are useful because I can all of a sudden be >> pulled away from something I'm working on and set to work on something >> entirely different for up to 6 months (so far we haven't had a single >> emergency project run longer than that). It doesn't happen a lot, but >> it *does* happen. > > So of course my first question is "then why didn't you use a branch?" :)
Because nobody / not everybody has perfect foresight, sometimes you don't know in advance that what you thought was going to be a temporary stash will turn into a long lived stash. What you are saying is that really you should always create a branch, just in case your temporary stash proved to be more long-lived than thought?
-- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier