Re: [PATCH] stash: add 'rename' subcommand

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 17, 2026, 01:11 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqpl0mbetb.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <allISNh-b6Sc6y5-@fruit.crustytoothpaste.net>

"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> 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.

Hmph, are you saying that you are going to wade through 211 stash entries one by one and reword them?

> 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.

This is not necessarily related to what Emin's patch does or tries to do, but it suggests to me that it would be ultra-nice if we could have a stash that is associated with each individual branch. It is as if we have been living in a world with only detached HEADs and you suddenly invented named branches. ;-)

Well, the original design motivation behind "git stash" was the "boss is here" emergency mode, and the expectation was that such an emergency would not nest to leave anyone with more than a handful of entries. Thus, a single stash shared repository-wide across your branches was not a huge problem. But our workflows have evolved, so our tool support may have to evolve alongside them.

Thanks for the food for thought.