4 ms·
> As I said to the other commenter - I don't even know how to use git without the stash, since you need everytime when you have some local changes but want to p
by chokolad 6y ago
> As I said to the other commenter - I don't even know how to use git without the stash, since you need everytime when you have some local changes but want to pull from the remote - the only alternative I know of is committing your local changes instead of stashing them.
I usually do all the work in branches anyways, so I'll just create a quick branch and commit it there.
- JeremyNT 6y ago> I usually do all the work in branches anyways, so I'll just create a quick branch and commit it there. I never work on a checked-out version of a branch that's currently being updated. I always check out a new branch for my work and rebase or merge off the branch others are working on. I'm fully aware of stash, and every now and then I use it, but it's pretty infrequent. Seeing as you need to learn branching anyway it's not going to be important for every workflow.
- kubanczyk 6y agoExactly. For some busy repos I tend to remove local master (and develop) branches altogether. It's less moving parts that way. git branch feature1 origin/master # create ... git fetch --all git rebase -i origin/master feature1 Also, use emacs's magit as a better ui. Even if you don't use emacs, seriously. It's fantastically easy and fast.