Git: how to use stash

http://softwarecave.org/2014/02/20/git-how-to-use-stash-2/

by robertp1984 • 12 years ago

42 42 12 years ago

Does anyone know why stash names are so ugly? I've always found typing "git stash apply stash@{3}" to be pretty painful (not to mention redundant).

ozh• 12 years ago

Making an alias to use something like `stash apply #3` shouldn't be too complicated

heinrich5991• 12 years ago

That's a bad idea, it would need quoting as the `#3` would be considered to be a comment in most shells.

_kfb2• 12 years ago

You might want to check out the Bash completions for Git: https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/contrib/completion/gi.... They work with stash names so can take some of the pain away.

pornel2• 12 years ago

It's a generic git syntax for "this reference 3 versions ago", see `man git-rev-parse`

It works for other things too, e.g. you can undo rebase with `git reset master@{1}` (i.e. reset master to previous location of master).

doognukem• 12 years ago

I sometimes prefer using the git-wip commands.

https://github.com/tjmehta/git-wip

Let's me organize my "stashes" based on work-in-progress local branch commits. Also easier to rebase onto if it's a local branch that hasn't been pushed yet etc.

  git wip 
    - alias for git add .; git commit -m __wip;

  git unwip 
    - checks if last commit is a __wip and git reset HEAD^

sauronlord• 12 years ago

Curious.... why not use feature branches for absolutely everything and follow the git flow and treat hot fixes as prescribed?

gamehead200• 12 years ago

Depends on what you're working on, really. I find myself using stash when I quickly want to undo a change to check something, but preserve it for future use.

emillon• 12 years ago

For example, to test partial commits:

    git add -p
    git stash
    test
    commit
    git stash pop

Dirlewanger• 12 years ago

Stash is invaluable for when I need to do a hotfix or something or other and the work I'm currently doing on a feature branch is a mess of half-completed files that I just would not feel comfortable calling an actual commit. Stash allows you to save this and then come right back to it. Not every workflow needs to be followed to a T, at all times.

pg_bot• 12 years ago

Missing my favorite flag for stash: --include-untracked. This will also stash any files that are not currently being tracked by git.

ddoolin2• 12 years ago

git stash -u is much shorter :p This is default for me, now, since I've had untracked files straight up deleted because I didn't include them in my stash.

fr0sty3• 12 years ago

I've had untracked files straight up deleted because I didn't include them in my stash.

Do you recall the actual circumstances? That shouldn't happen in the normal course of things...

kooshball• 12 years ago

My favorite stash option is -p which let you select which lines you want to stash.

adsche• 12 years ago

Yes, -p is great, also on `git add`.

J_Darnley• 12 years ago

Also available on commit.

wldlyinaccurate• 12 years ago

I hardly use stash any more. If I need to "stash" something, I just commit it. The reason this is okay is because we work on very small branches, with the aim of squashing everything into a single commit before merging it with master. So it doesn't matter if I commit half-baked code to my branch, since it's going to be squashed anyway.

lmm2• 12 years ago

I find that scenario makes me use stash much more - I usually have several branches on the go, so I can sometimes make changes while on the wrong one, at which point I'll stash and switch to the correct branch.

saraid216• 12 years ago

Huh. It's worth noting that you don't have to have a clean branch before you switch to another. You'll automatically shunt the changes to the new branch when you switch.

I've often had the workflow of "make a bunch of changes on master; git checkout -b new_feature_branch; git commit -am 'save it off'; git checkout master".

I haven't looked into the plumbing that goes into that, but I suspect it's actually stashing and popping for you.

_kfb2• 12 years ago

It's worth pointing out that `git stash` (without arguments) is equivalent to `git stash save`.

VeejayRampay• 12 years ago

I never stash. I just commit instead and then rewrite my commit history with some reword/squash/fixup using git rebase -i. So in the end, it's like that half-commit never existed and I'm good to go. I've also found that people tend to forget about stashes. I can't count the times where I've found people with 3 or 4 months-old stashes swept under the rug.

oneandoneis2• 12 years ago

Far better:

git commit -a -m 'Work in progress'

Switch to other branch, do work on it. When you come back to the branch,

git reset --soft HEAD^

It's far less volatile than stash, and far better at keeping WIP in the right place when things get so hectic that you have abandoned work on more than one branch.

Stash is only really safe to use for very short-lived uses, such as "stash/pull/unstash"

foreigner• 12 years ago

Exactly right. When you first start using Git "stash" is a revelation, but over time you use it less and less. A good rule of thumb is "When in doubt, commit.". And embrace "rebase".

Myrmornis2• 12 years ago

Yes. One example use case for stash is saving some debugging change that makes sense being applied in many branches. But yes, most articles like this seem to be written by people who are yet to fully appreciate that branches are cheap/free.

adwf• 12 years ago

I think it's because some workplaces have policies about not committing partially done code. ie. Don't break the build.

Personally, if I'm on a local branch I don't care, but I guess it might bother some people.

pornel2• 12 years ago

In git commits are done off-line, so nobody will see the commit if you don't push it.

You can clean up such work-in-progress commits before pushing by using interactive rebase.

taeric2• 12 years ago

How is this really any better/different than just giving a message to a stash?

peterwwillis• 12 years ago

how many times have you stashed, and in what stages of development, and when you try to apply them later, will they be in order and will they work on the codebase as it has changed? also, do you even remember you stashed, and is there a log longer than 1 line?

stash is a quick hack, and is useful as a quick hack, but commits just work better.

fr0sty3• 12 years ago

Why would you recommend reset --soft ?

To get back to where you started (changes not added to the index, since you are doing commit -a) you should do `git reset --mixed HEAD~` (or drop the --mixed argument as it's the default).

dexen• 12 years ago

Use stash for easier rebasing and/or pull --merge.

  git stash
  git pull --rebase origin master
  git stash pop

Trufa• 12 years ago

The most useful part was the comment:

I think it’s worth emphasising that stash stores just your changes and not a snapshot of the entire tree. This means that you can create your stash on one branch and then pop it onto another branch. When you pop from the stash a merge is done including any conflict resolution that may be necessary.

Myrmornis2• 12 years ago

Is that any different from cherry-picking it from a branch?

zimbatm• 12 years ago

I wish there was a better way to reference the stashes than "stash@{0}".

jimworm• 12 years ago

This article made me git stash list and gee I hope I was faster doing all those things the second time round.

randallsquared• 12 years ago

"Normally, I would have to save the changes (diff) into some file, switch to the main branch abandoning any changes, apply the fix or improvement and commit it. Then I could switch back to my own branch, apply the changes (patch) from the file and continue the work."

Really? Why would you "normally" jump through all these hoops just to work in the same directory? Using svn, my response to this is to jump back to the root of all my projects (~/codebase/ at my current work), checkout a clean version of the branch I need to work on, make changes / test / commit, and rm -rf the whole branch, changing directory back to where I was. If I get blocked on that change for a few hours, I don't have to jump through additional hoops to go back to working on the thing that was interrupted, since I can just change directory back to it.

Is there a reason why this is an awful workflow in git?

ndeine• 12 years ago

He's not actually talking about saving the diff and patching within a git repo, as far as I can gather from:

[...], apply the changes (patch) from the file and continue the work. While it is not something difficult, it can be done much easier with Git.

Since he's saying "it can be done much easier with Git", the implication is that he wasn't using Git earlier, and the workflow with `git stash` is far cleaner than that diff/patch workflow.

At least, I think that's the case. I really can't imagine someone doing that instead of just using Git and `git stash` in the first place.

Eiwatah4• 12 years ago

That works just fine. But if you're working on a big project, a full new download can take a while.

Git: how to use stash

Related Stories