I use it all day every day, and I really like it for the workflows I have, which are basically contributing to open source projects that use the "send patches b

I use it all day every day, and I really like it for the workflows I have, which are basically contributing to open source projects that use the "send patches by email for review, features should be sent as patch series with each commit doing one thing for ease of code review" workflow. If the thing you want to send off for code review is not "a commit" but "a series of maybe 10 to 30 carefully crafted commits", stgit just makes it very easy to create that series of commits and work with it, putting code changes into the right patches, reshuffling the patch order, etc, as you go along. It's possible to do all that with interactive rebase, but I never got the hang of that and find the stgit interface much more intuitive. In particular, the 'git rebase' manual suggests that the typical rebase workflow is "create a lot of commits, and some fixup commits, and then occasionally tidy up with interactive rebase". The stgit workflow is much more "keep your patchseries tidy as you go along" because it's trivially easy to say "actually this little change should go in the patch 15 commits before the one I'm currently at", or "actually let me unstack these last 5 commits and spend the next day creating patches that logically belong before them, and then tomorrow push those last 5 commits back on again". I use separate branches for different topics/features, but basically every branch is an stgit patchseries.