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) .
