The author does explain their alternative to stash (a temporary commit in the new branch that will eventually be cleaned up / removed during 'rebase -i' before

The author does explain their alternative to stash (a temporary commit in the new branch that will eventually be cleaned up / removed during 'rebase -i' before pushing) and why that fits with the way they work. Why is stash better than this? Because it avoids the rebase? Many people do this anyway, early commit messages often need rewording. Because it maintains the separate state of the current working directory and the index? Is that it? I don't think that's really a compelling enough reason to claim the author's avoidance of stash is the wrong way to work.