hg equivalent of git stash

[Masklinn]

On 13 déc. 2011, at 04:04, Frank Kingswood <frank at kingswood-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
> Losing the named patch just to be able to make changes to it seems like a downside of git stash.
It's not because the *purpose* of these tools is different. The point of stash is exactly what it says, it's a place where you temporarily stash changes when you need to do something else. Stash manages interruptions, not changes. As a result, not having names is neither a loss nor a bug: they would add needless complexity to the simple task of "put this [stuff] away for a while". Every diff does not need a name. 

Now can you express stash operations in terms of mq? Of course at this thread demonstrates, but each stash commands balloons into 2 to 3 mq commands with somewhat cryptic behaviours, and a simple and straightforward tasks becomes… awkward.

That's why, even though I know and *love* mq, I have shelve installed and enabled. I don't need an 18-wheeler to go and get a pound of sugar at the grocery store 'round the corner, a pair of shoes will do.