No I do not know it, how does it work? On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Vitor Medina Cruz <vitormc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I agree on the case of fake commit, I prefer your usage of git. In > the case of stash, I prefer Intellij shelve feature, do you know it? I > think it helps me organize better than the stash, I use it all the time. > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Nicolas Passerini <npasser...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Vitor Medina Cruz <vitormc...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> My two cents: having different images for branches is a good workaround, >>> but I will have to manually control those images, while git abstracts this >>> a little since I have a way to tell it to stash and bring back work in >>> progress. Depending on the project, I think loading a new image with a >>> fresh HEAD would require a lot of time to bring all dependencies and >>> compile, while just getting changes made at certain point from an image and >>> stash them would be much faster, am I wrong? >>> >>> >> Just one comment: the proposal is not to have an image for each branch, >> you can switch branches using Iceberg. What Iceberg does support not >> currently is just the "stash" command. >> >> Yet it could be slower to create a clean image with your changes, there >> are ways to make it faster. Also git stash has its own problems, personally >> I am not a fun of that feature, and I've seen lots of time people messing >> with it and loosing changes. Moreover, I do not see that saving a "fake" >> commit to later delete it as a "best practice", but more as a workaround >> because you do not have a better tool. >> >> For all this grounds is that we do not see it as a priority, because we >> think that there are other tools that can replace it (yet we would like to >> listen to other opinions) . >> > >
