On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:09:58PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Joshua Paine <[email protected]>wrote: > > Scenario (2): You are in the middle of a big change when a minor bug report > comes in. You stash your incomplete change, fix the minor bug, then pop > your stash to continue working on your big change.
This is actually the main usage I can think of. Consider a minor variation of this. You have done your big change and want to update to the latest version and see that someone else has done a commit in the mean time. When do you merge? First variant is commit first and merge in the second step. This can be done already, but can make it non-intuitive what the commit did, especially if the merge ends up being non-trivial. The other approach is to merge first and commit afterwards. For that second approach, stash is useful. An alternative idea would be think about it in terms of a patch queue. Joerg _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
