4 ms·
But you'd have to stash before pull. At least with my config where a pull will rebase automatically.
by TomK32 9y ago
But you'd have to stash before pull. At least with my config where a pull will rebase automatically.
- OJFord 9y agoI use `git config pull.rebase true` too, but that doesn't mean you _have_ to stash first, just as rebase manually wouldn't - depends if there's a conflict. Same is true of merge-based pull.
- e12e 9y agoExcept for saving some typing, is there any benefit to stash over local branches? In other words, shouldn't git just fix ux for branches and rip out stash?
- OJFord 9y agoSo "some typing" would be: # git stash: prev_ref="$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)" git checkout -b wip-stash git add . git commit -m 'wip stuff' git checkout "$prev_ref" # git stash pop: git checkout wip-stash -- . git checkout -D wip-stash It's quite a considerable saving. I suppose by "fix UX" you mean make it so the saving would be less anyway, but I think really they're just conceptually different: - branch: pointer to a line of history, i.e. a commit and inherently its ancestors - stash: a single commit-like dump of patches If stashing disappeared from git tomorrow, I think I'd use orphan commits rather than branches to replace it.