Re: Branches & directories

[Hilco Wijbenga <hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com>]

On 3 October 2011 07:59, Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hilco Wijbenga skrev 2011-10-03 09.15:
>>
>> On 2 October 2011 20:07, Jeff King<peff@peff.net>  wrote:
>> <snip/>
>>>
>>> Or did you really mean your example literally, as in you run two
>>> checkouts back to back, without running anything in between, and the
>>> second checkout restores the state before the first one. In that case,
>>> yes, it would be correct to keep the old timestamps. But this is an
>>> optimization that can only apply in a few very specific cases. And
>>> moreoever, how can git know when it is OK to apply that optimization? It
>>> has no idea what commands you might have run since the last time we were
>>> at "master".
>>
>> Yes, I meant it literally. And, no, Git could not possibly know so it
>> would have to be optional behaviour. But it's probably a lot of work
>> for (for most people) little gain.
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
> I wouldn't use stash for that. Just regular commit/amend and your
> timestamps should be fine. Alternative submit a patch for either
> the save or create subcommands of stash. That would not be very
> hard (technically)  and no one needs to mess with the timestamps;
> they will just survive.

By "that" you mean jump to another branch? I don't see how doing an
explicit commit changes anything. Stashing is essentially committing
(i.e. a "dummy" commit is created to store the stash, IIUC), isn't it?

As I mentioned before, I'm quite happy with git-new-workdir. It allows
me to work exactly the way I want. I may have some philosophical
reservations about Git's timestamp handling but practically speaking
I'm a happy little camper. :-)