From the documentation at git-scm, there are two git stash commands that mention relevance to scripting, but not general use:
create
Unfortunately the nice example that Andrew showed above does not work in all cases, because:
If there are local changes then git stash create
will create an unreferenced commit, but it won't actually clear the local changes.
If there are not any local changes, then it won't create a commit at all (as BlackVegetable pointed out). In that case we should not apply
at the end.
(And minor: Andrew forgot to keep and use the commit ID produced by create
.)
With that in mind, it appears to me that the usage should be like this:
# Save the local changes, keep a reference to them, and clear them
stashed_commit="$(git stash create)"
git reset --hard
# Do your thing
git fetch
git rebase
# If there were local changes, then restore them
if [ -n "${stashed_commit}" ]
then git stash apply "${stashed_commit}"
fi
Unwieldy to say the least!
Alas. It would be far simpler if I could just git stash save --allow-empty
at the top, and git stash pop
at the bottom.
I would love to be wrong. Please correct me!
You can use git stash create
when you're writing scripts that need to stash as an implementation detail and you don't want to disturb the user's stash reflog.
Depending on what happens next, you might (in the case of error, say) decide you do want to disturb the stash reflog after all, at which point you can use git stash store
.
Obviously a regular stash can be implemented in terms of create
then store
, but I can also imagine it being used in a hypothetical update-branch
command that does something like this:
git stash create
git fetch
git rebase
git stash apply