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) . >
