[PATCH 2 of 2 RFCv2] commands: introduce stash command
pierre-yves.david at logilab.fr
Tue Feb 19 05:01:50 CST 2013
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:26:03AM -0600, Sean Farley wrote:
> 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 :-)
We could have histedit, rebase, update gains a --stash option to automatically
Maybe even automatically do that but it sound a bit too bold.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Mercurial-devel