From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hilco Wijbenga Subject: Re: Branches & directories Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:20:11 -0700 Message-ID: References:

<4E889813.8070205@gmail.com> <20111003030723.GA24523@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4E89CDCA.9030802@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Jeff King , Kyle Moffett , Michael Witten , Junio C Hamano , Evan Shelhamer , Git Mailing List To: Robin Rosenberg X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 03 19:20:19 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RAmBe-0001Rv-5s for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:20:18 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757020Ab1JCRUO convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:20:14 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com ([209.85.216.181]:50222 "EHLO mail-qy0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755372Ab1JCRUM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:20:12 -0400 Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so3874569qyk.19 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:20:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Y2O05DGv+ZMOoUTyC+SmlETxW4Y7OS7x0jfjGdU708g=; b=ZiRKA4qZfJa9Ixg9Q/q5C06VanK9SNS5e/WWYgRoTb+aQOEr0Z5iMyhXR3cMCsS1Op EUoO4XCnwOBbfGAZPFfXSDUr2ka6A29xVxuIuVybd6kMKPXrw2upUek3LgXV0ax1ayrM eYWRfKUUdMHgMWPhpnBdKUvraih6palGBNX0g= Received: by 10.229.72.87 with SMTP id l23mr168455qcj.163.1317662411715; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.87.134 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:20:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E89CDCA.9030802@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 3 October 2011 07:59, Robin Rosenberg wr= ote: > Hilco Wijbenga skrev 2011-10-03 09.15: >> >> On 2 October 2011 20:07, Jeff King =C2=A0wrote: >> >>> >>> Or did you really mean your example literally, as in you run two >>> checkouts back to back, without running anything in between, and th= e >>> second checkout restores the state before the first one. In that ca= se, >>> 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 optimizatio= n? 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 i= t >> 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 =C2=A0http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.h= tml >> > 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) =C2=A0and 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. :-)