From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Elfring Subject: Re: Better cooperation between checkouts and stashing Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:20:16 +0100 Message-ID: <4B8C2F90.8080104@web.de> References: <4B67227A.7030908@web.de> <7vhbq0wuy6.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4B898F97.90706@web.de> <7vr5o6s5xf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4B8B9BF1.10408@web.de> <7v1vg4ufas.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4b8c0420.5544f10a.2eb2.ffffb4c4@mx.google.com> <7vk4tvsu6x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Michael Witten , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 01 22:21:25 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NmD3N-0000df-4A for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:21:25 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751366Ab0CAVVU (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:21:20 -0500 Received: from fmmailgate02.web.de ([217.72.192.227]:49162 "EHLO fmmailgate02.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751307Ab0CAVVU (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:21:20 -0500 Received: from smtp06.web.de (fmsmtp06.dlan.cinetic.de [172.20.5.172]) by fmmailgate02.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F5B150F2324; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:21:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from [78.48.194.16] (helo=[192.168.1.202]) by smtp06.web.de with asmtp (WEB.DE 4.110 #314) id 1NmD2G-000456-00; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:20:16 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091130 SUSE/3.0.0-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0 In-Reply-To: <7vk4tvsu6x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Provags-ID: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > If you want to have per-branch stash, that is a totally independent problem, > and I'd suggest using real refs ($GIT_DIR/refs/stashes/$branch_name) instead > of the md5 hack, if that is the motivation. How is this use case different from the other? Which "problem" have you got in mind? Regards, Markus