From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f41.google.com (mail-wm1-f41.google.com [209.85.128.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10FA33C1D62 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2026 06:32:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791354722; cv=none; b=uYsmmSPiR6t8HAuX8UIurFVAfBr4CxxWvcOHsvnFQGb5G6BgZ3isLwZHipDo66MYOnqBpuwqKCw5kcKZPpZKybOHjlElhmvvkdLZ3AHszI4O34zCXhIA5a3gR9p/CiWTlgAQCm3fAZJVEqN2kYhkRu+2oyrW0dH0veH4e0JauTg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791354722; c=relaxed/simple; bh=InWkRYbaQmPu17aPdaix+dYJ8Jk0uvDApzq/ogHtOG4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=rqubiL2aIeUKj/lQRXUGHGpoMylRZXhym40L2xTvpeKVq9/yPjCka/rc1Ql9iSLnzseCv1ECNF0QMIKgUhmV5fz3tyYFwObl9IYtVtx4rMLg2wvoa8L0EyGtKAAtT1f0Kx+WwJ9AvGd6HfkzqMiMS9s/ctNFvGMO2Vr0bCan3XI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=GMfxkgax; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="GMfxkgax" Received: by mail-wm1-f41.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a16c399641so14545145e9.2 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2026 23:32:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1791354719; x=1791959519; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=Hu9Mkbh0v5YNMNtnIlMwjKo4DvSI0epksm1cZizQo48=; b=GMfxkgaxGamMAjFMezzzU4V4Cxsq+MbbmbV6AFxz+k5LPf1ARmy9eVQcTQvTD8GYWA JbiNRwOr9Qo6CcAwQFIr0UwvUrgqffP+iq0qRg3JCLqniXyhKp8pChyrok0m+P9abIYR jO42Q5AJtbVAqxLdMrTbn6UnXLwNIDxK+BW1KERFtdQW+GqC1jI+2R+ZhvQp+mhjcsg3 U+H1xKTlSfuoxvVe3f81wtlYNSqOfma+9q9JmltgJluaieNWk4ShW7ks0Gh4w7+IOo6Y mxIjEcd/ArD08ERC3wEQlzArwVRXtHHyQ8GD0/2W8XvEoj22/j4m66h5iCFN3ZnMFQSa tEAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1791354719; x=1791959519; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=Hu9Mkbh0v5YNMNtnIlMwjKo4DvSI0epksm1cZizQo48=; b=uHB/+CfzOcJK4aEqe9lcNQHBdl6nO+mYRAOXG+nZxo3nKEbLYLlFGHEnJ6qWY8t5c1 cfsHEJY8vym0RoPhe7HS1xEmQmkosat/4QTgiMwXSMnU24sCVrBvpeED6rngMoJSE2rN dl3dRuutoRScDfO5nurmDa+oAFeWeBjA96aq4ycU0OiCi8nKoAJVKolkbgjLG4ICSf9H raC/8p29yjvvOVxKoz2jMLhxsGFxKeL2KCWdX7o6UlSldj0iULnSnTIWES+ygHiuGQ9B nBwVZaFvUbIBBqn0alwNih7n4qupxp3uOLQ0CSfDwtM3HQpGYV9NTpOmd1zX0yelZbVI cBdA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBzgsC4I0rEHe86DLMOMwHsT5fz20KQ8DqI5OlNkS9McM+47vlJS9hM1j3ssL/6f7bE9umQ=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++lA+mQgrW26R0zpxJuouul0UTXqSYaappZyDauWDKj0p53CuZPU bdODAYUMys27Kweq+CiOGhTVBH2//esZhDmZHklDhlHBtEMzVCp9p00K/OOO96OIoNs= X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou0H6dDd0jub3iIzzSNMtvJDMgprjzvwSjQLt6aWL1h7BxPVPXDBXuWsa7W2QB+ oR3KYrjSWtTo701LfDmrrW5jzAAWkXSSuM4b2DqGERPVpg5OokqqJk+1CoAEsyhplR/35Xt5V1q OaNTNAvJi8G7py9Fde+82GaoSY2dEoJrSDa/syKZl/89cZWG45G8NJ6d9Nhueq8z9hpPjwxHb1S Uc5PPfpYfW6GyNAYgNYm/VtFUb+4uZacim2p/m8xOyPPbffNNUKi5GWJlXF1ZhV0HQnHH1ZxAsR +QouqEovXTyShPuzSkkstwXNas1tHuY3xzjfba9hHeNxzelJpewqydQ6eMACaV9bAe4kjZ1Nwi0 SsXkWQX4cowUqsCSPAldDAvDHfm7+rkIukhwcPVwB1UJrxfUeYsAKnc17WUS0XRoWjaCNQ9+DaI nVuhgcgdu5yy4jiWk33EdMWcYJ3ZpMefSbpSCXxZyf4WR5UUWFXFIqLacrqvpr6XV2CuDV0H5+i JX3P3UGKxwfyPHY9GxjYLKCGjzA X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:6099:b0:4a0:1fb9:2f51 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a18043be70mr14054775e9.14.1791354719209; Tue, 06 Oct 2026 23:31:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SSI-H-ARSHAD-LP.ssilhr.com.pk ([182.188.28.123]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a17f558028sm48089855e9.10.2026.10.06.23.31.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 06 Oct 2026 23:31:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Hanan Arshad To: gitster@pobox.com Cc: j6t@kdbg.org, git@vger.kernel.org, sandals@crustytoothpaste.net Subject: Re: [RFC] git stash: add porcelain for sharing stashes through remotes Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2026 11:31:55 +0500 Message-ID: <20261007063155.4573-1-hananarshad619@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.53.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20261005055337.7579-1-hananarshad619@gmail.com> <7012706b-516b-4cd9-abf3-0144093e0779@kdbg.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > All of the three you listed (discovery, transfer, clean-up) become > easier to work with if you used branches, branches have always had > good support for these three (and other) operations, and I do not > see a good reason to add a parallel support to do something similar. I understand the concern. I think I did not explain the workflow that originally motivated the RFC clearly enough. The idea came from a workflow I used with Perforce shelves. One concrete case is build configuration. The repository contains configuration templates, while I may have several local configuration variants that should not become part of the normal project history. A tester may need to apply the same configuration while testing different branches or revisions, for example: branch A + configuration X branch B + configuration X release branch + configuration X Using a branch for configuration X makes it another line of history based on some revision. When the code being tested changes, that configuration then has to be merged, rebased, cherry-picked, or otherwise combined with the revision being tested. What I want instead is an overlay: the tester chooses the code revision and the temporary configuration independently, applies the configuration for the test, and then discards it. Perforce shelves give this kind of temporary handoff a straightforward user-facing workflow. Git already has the underlying functionality as well; that became clearer to me during this discussion. A stash can already be pushed as a ref, so I agree that adding a separate "publish" command would not be justified. My motivation for the RFC is therefore not to add another transport or storage mechanism. It is to see whether the existing stash/ref functionality could have a more coherent UX for this kind of temporary handoff, instead of requiring users to compose the generic ref, push/fetch, and stash operations themselves. This configuration-overlay workflow is one concrete use case that motivated the idea. There may be other temporary handoff use cases, but I do not want to rely on hypothetical cases to justify it. Thanks, Hanan