From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix cg-commit -p to not touch the working tree Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:25:37 -0800 Message-ID: <7v8xf4atoe.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20070212031923.D20B913A382@magnus.utsl.gen.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Petr Baudis , git@vger.kernel.org To: Sam Vilain X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 12 05:25:42 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HGSl4-0000hb-2u for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:25:42 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932942AbXBLEZj (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:25:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932944AbXBLEZj (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:25:39 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.241.42]:36294 "EHLO fed1rmmtao104.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932942AbXBLEZi (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:25:38 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070212042539.ENQU22948.fed1rmmtao104.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:25:39 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id NURe1W0061kojtg0000000; Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:25:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20070212031923.D20B913A382@magnus.utsl.gen.nz> (Sam Vilain's message of "Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:14:31 +1300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Sam Vilain writes: > Previously, the working tree state was modified with `patch', which > was a fragile operation. Do everything with `git-apply --cached > --index' instead. I do not use Cogito so I do not know what behaviour is wanted here, but '--cached --index' is same as saying just '--cached' as far as I know. It will patch against the index and should not touch working tree. If the original used 'patch' to apply, I suspect it wanted to touch the working tree (and possibly, it wanted to leave the index alone?), so --cached might be completely wrong thing to use here?