In my experience unless you are pretty much immediately popping the stash it's much better just to make a branch and do a normal commit. I would recommend avoiding git stash in general.
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
16 points (90.0% liked)
Git
4541 readers
12 users here now
Git is a free and open source distributed version control system designed to handle everything from small to very large projects with speed and efficiency.
Resources
Rules
- Follow programming.dev rules
- Be excellent to each other, no hostility towards users for any reason
- No spam of tools/companies/advertisements. It’s OK to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the community should not be self-promotion.
Git Logo by Jason Long is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This sounds all well and good. But I find in practice it never works very well. Too easy to gain a conflict which then messes with the stash (things remain in the stash and need to be dropped if you remember to). I always found it a pain to manage.
These days I just commit everything to master. When I start work on one feature to realise I need something else or to refactor something else first the I do that work, patch commit the changes, create a branch and checkout a new worktree, cherry pick the changes and push that branch to create a pull request. Then continue with the previous work while I wait to get the previous work merged.
Have a script which basically lets me do all that with a single command. And I never need to manage the stash. The only time I use the stash is with a rebase or pull etc with the --auto-stash flag. Which pops things off when it's done anyway. The stash only really works for very temporary stuff like that.