git checkout --autostash and git branch --autopop

> Hi rottis,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 02:19:50PM +0200, rottis@fea.st wrote:
> > Similar to the 'git rebase --autostash', running 'git checkout --autostash' would automatically stash uncommitted changes for the
> > current branch.  then running 'git branch --autopop' would automatically apply an automatic stash when switching to a branch that had one.
> 
> I currently have a WIP version of this feature but I haven't had enough
> time to polish it off (tests and docs). The last RFC round can be seen
> here[1] if you want to test it out. It seems to work well enough for
> personal use.

> Hi rottis,
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 02:19:50PM +0200, rottis@fea.st wrote:
>> Similar to the 'git rebase --autostash', running 'git checkout --autostash' would automatically stash uncommitted changes for the
>> current branch.  then running 'git branch --autopop' would automatically apply an automatic stash when switching to a branch that had one.
> I currently have a WIP version of this feature but I haven't had enough
> time to polish it off (tests and docs). The last RFC round can be seen
> here[1] if you want to test it out. It seems to work well enough for
> personal use.
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1571246693.git.liu.denton@gmail.com/

> Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes:
>
>> Isn't this meant to be something similar to the --no-merge option for
>> checkout. That is: I am where I am, but really I want this to be on
>> branch X. Or is the --no-merge option meant to be something else?
> Is there a --no-merge option to "git checkout"?  

> I know the reason
> why I invented "git checkout --merge" was because I wanted the
> command to carry more changes in the working tree than the default
> behaviour would while checking out another branch, but I do not
> think I added an option to do less, i.e. forbid it from carrying any
> change in the working tree while checking out another branch.

> Often in my work I need to checkout my coworkers’ branches. When that happens, I will likely have some uncommitted changes I would need to commit or stash.
>
> This purely an ergonomic feature I’m suggesting.
>
> So instead of git stash or git commit -m ”wip” and later git stash pop or git reset HEAD~1, I could just run git checkout -b —autostash other-branch, do the work on the other branch and return to my previous state with git checkout —autopop my-branch.

>
> Apologies if I messed up my Git usage, I have used Git through Magit for too long.
>
>> On 14. Dec 2019, at 1.12 PM, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> wrote:
>>
>> On 13/12/2019 17:16, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes:
>>>
>>>> Isn't this meant to be something similar to the --no-merge option for
>>>> checkout. That is: I am where I am, but really I want this to be on
>>>> branch X. Or is the --no-merge option meant to be something else?
>>> Is there a --no-merge option to "git checkout"?  
>> My mistake. I misremembered or misunderstood. I'd been looking at both
>> checkout and branch man pages to see if there was a way out of the do
>> the 'rewind current branch and create new branch at current state'
>> dance. I thought I'd seen 'no-merge' as a 'checkout -b' style option.
>>
>>> I know the reason
>>> why I invented "git checkout --merge" was because I wanted the
>>> command to carry more changes in the working tree than the default
>>> behaviour would while checking out another branch, but I do not
>>> think I added an option to do less, i.e. forbid it from carrying any
>>> change in the working tree while checking out another branch.
>> For creating a new branch when in a dirty state (based on some other
>> start point than HEAD), there should be an option for numpties that have
>> already started digging the hole for themselves (stick's hand up
>> apologetically)...
>>
>> I was hoping that @rottis would clarify if his request has the same
>> symptoms.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Philip