On 2026-09-28 at 14:27:23, Hanan Arshad wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to propose adding a small porcelain workflow for sharing
> stashes through a Git remote.
> 
> git stash export and git stash import already provide a transportable
> representation of stashes. I tested the following workflow using
> existing commands:
> 
> Alice:
>   git stash export --print stash@{0}
>   git push origin <export-tip>:refs/stashes/alice/wip

You can also use `--to-ref`, which is what I use, and then push that.

> Bob:
>   git fetch origin refs/stashes/alice/wip:refs/shared-stashes/origin/alice/wip
>   git stash import refs/shared-stashes/origin/alice/wip
> The imported stash is a normal local stash and retains the original
> stash object ID. Removing the remote ref afterward does not affect
> Bob's imported stash.
> 
> I'd like to add porcelain around this existing mechanism for four operations:
> 
> 1- publish a selected stash to a remote
> 2- list available shared stashes
> 3- get a shared stash as a normal local stash
> 4- remove a shared stash from the remote

I think that at least 1 is useful here, but you're going to need some
sort of customization.  The name I use for stashes when I am the only
person on the remote is not the same name I use when I'm sharing a
remote with others at my employer.

2 is going to be hard because you don't know whether a ref is a stash
without downloading the data.  3 is also hard because there's no
standard namespacing and it's going to differ based on the context (such
as refs/heads/bk2204/stash or refs/heads/stash).  4 isn't that
difficult.

> This would not introduce a new stash object format, server-side
> service, or synchronization model. It would essentially compose the
> existing export/import mechanism with normal push/fetch operations.
> Before working on an implementation, I'd appreciate feedback on a few
> design points:
> 1- What remote ref namespace would be appropriate?

Again, this is going to depend on the user and environment.

> 2- Should shared stashes use an explicit user-provided name or an
> object-derived identifier?

Names are going to be nicer.  We don't require people to memorize object
IDs and allow them to use branch and tag names.

> 3- Should listing only inspect remote refs, or fetch the export
> commits so stash messages can also be displayed?

Stashes can be large because they (a) can contain untracked files and
(b) contain a reference to history, so inspecting only remote refs is
going to be a lot lighter.

> 4- What command naming would fit best with the existing git stash interface?

Probably `git stash push` or something like that.

I think some nicer tooling would be helpful, so I'm in favour of that,
but I'm not sure that standardization is going to be possible.
-- 
brian m. carlson (they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA