[PATCH 2 of 2 RFCv2] commands: introduce stash command

[Sean Farley]

Laurens Holst writes:

> Op 18-02-13 01:03, Pierre-Yves David schreef:
>>> Stashes are unnamed (by default) and can be listed using --list and inspected
>>> with -s/--show.
> I don’t really like changing the meaning of a command with options; I 
> always preferred having “hg branches” and “hg branch” as separate 
> commands (as opposed to how Git does it).
>
> Similarly, I would prefer hg stashes to list them, and hg stash to make 
> them.
>
>> Is there real usage for unnamed stash? don't we want to force the user to provide a minimal description ?
> I almost never specify names with stashes, not in Mercurial nor git.
>
> I think that’s also always been one of the big advantages of Mercurial 
> vs. git; that you don’t need to think about branch names and can just 
> quickly create an anonymous one. Same principle applies to stashes.

I'll have to agree here with Laurens. 90% - 95% of the time that I want
to stash is because some command needs to muck with the working
directory (e.g. histedit, rebase, etc.). Therefore, I really don't care
about the name of the stash most of the time.

Of course, if histedit, rebase, et al. could be improved to use memctx,
then I might change my tune :-)