[PATCH RFC/WIP] introduce stash command

[David Champion]

* On 04 Jun 2012, Augie Fackler wrote: 
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Idan Kamara <idankk86 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Yes, the message is optional. So if we drop the option
> > to name stashes, we'll have a similar interface.
> 
> I think the option to name them is fantastic.

Idan said that stash is aimed in part at replacing the use of mq (for
certain use cases anyway).  To actually eliminate the "should I use
stash/attic/whatever or mq" question, it should be able to do everything
that most people expect when using mq for this purpose.

I value being able both to name and to describe an mq commit, and for
that to be retained in the patch file when I pop it.  The description is
important for "developing" your log entry as the patch evolves; the name
is important for being able to programmatically identify a single patch,
e.g. during comparative testing.

Mercurial's versioned tags don't really support using tags as patch
names, but a suitable analog to that -- something addressible by -r and
by revsets generally -- seems useful in moving to stash.

I don't think that replicating git's stash interface is important at
all, so long as what people expect to be able to do can be done.  A new
entry in this field should address first the complexity of choosing a
mercurial-based solution, and address onboarding git users after.

-- 
David Champion • dgc at uchicago.edu • IT Services • University of Chicago