Re: Stashing just index..working-copy rather than HEAD..working-copy?

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Chris Torek <chris.torek@gmail.com> writes:

> With all that said, I'd like to make one last suggestion, which
> I think is a lot simpler: *stop using `git stash`*.  Just make
> a commit!

;-)

If I recall correctly, the original design of "git stash" was "I
save everything in the working tree, so that I can start working on
an urgent request immediately, and then later restore everything",
and there was no "--index" option for application, even though the
stash entries were the W commit that is a merge of the I (index)
commit and the B (base) commit.  The "apply/pop --index" was a mere
afterthought that does not work very well and made things more
confusing.  It wasn't meant to be used in anything complex, for
which a separate branch with real commits were the way to go.

There were some reasons (like, working tree side post-commit hooks
that are not well written to distinguish temporary commits from real
ones and send out notifications outside) that some folks wanted to
avoid making a commit on a temporary branch and to them, having a
bit more complex "stash" may have been a way for them to avoid
triggering those poorly designed workflow around post-commit hooks.
But with modern Git in this age with workflows and disciplines
better understood, I agree that we should encourage use of more
temporary branches with real commits.  If there are reasons to cause
developers fear of commitment (e.g., "my $CORP environment forces me
to show every commit I make to CI server, which slows me down and
wastes resources if I make many tentative commits only for
snapshot"), they should be solved in a way that users do not have to
fear commitments.

Thanks.