Useful post that taught me a few new tricks about stash.
I like to use stashes as opposed to a "half commit" mentioned by others because conceptually it's not a commit; it represents a chunk of work that is not in a commit-ready state, but is a work in progress. You can (and almost always should, IMHO) include a description of a stash and you also know what commit the stash is based off on and the branch you had checked out when you stashed. Thus, you get the same basic information as a "half commit" while avoiding what for me is a mixing of conceptually different things that I prefer to keep separate.
Of course, to each their own. That's one of the things I love about git is that it offers at least some flexibility to taylor it to what you feel is your optimal workflow.
I like to use stashes as opposed to a "half commit" mentioned by others because conceptually it's not a commit; it represents a chunk of work that is not in a commit-ready state, but is a work in progress. You can (and almost always should, IMHO) include a description of a stash and you also know what commit the stash is based off on and the branch you had checked out when you stashed. Thus, you get the same basic information as a "half commit" while avoiding what for me is a mixing of conceptually different things that I prefer to keep separate.
Of course, to each their own. That's one of the things I love about git is that it offers at least some flexibility to taylor it to what you feel is your optimal workflow.