checkout and rm

checkout and rm

[Jeff Jenkins]

I couldn't find a thread in the archive about this.  Here's the  
abbreviated scenario:

$ git add bar.c
$ git-rm foo.c
rm 'foo.c'
$ git-status
# On branch FOO
# Changes to be committed:
#   (use "git reset HEAD <file>..." to unstage)
#
#       modified:   bar.c
#       deleted:    foo.c
#

$ git-checkout master
M       bar.c
Switched to branch "master"
$ git-status
# On branch master
# Changes to be committed:
#   (use "git reset HEAD <file>..." to unstage)
#
#       modified:   bar.c
#

When I change branches:
- the modified files in the index/working directory stay there  
(that's fine)
- the *removed* files are re-added to the working directory when the  
branch changes
- the remove entries aren't in the index anymore

There was no warning about any the lost changes, and if the intent  
was to commit these changes to master because you were in FOO by  
accident, then only some would be committed if you weren't paying  
close attention.  If working directory/index changes are going to be  
kept when a branch switch is done, then the remove changes should be  
propagated as well.

Ideally there would be a config setting which would stop checkouts if  
the working directory or index were dirty (and a flag on checkout  
which overrode the setting).    With stash in 1.5.3 the only reason I  
can think of to allow working directory changes to propagate is gone  
(though i haven't tested how stash works with rm'd files).  At the  
very least, there should be a warning and a prompt if some of the  
changes are going to vanish by a user action

-Jeff Jenkins

Re: checkout and rm

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff Jenkins <Jeff@ShopWiki.com> writes:

> With stash in 1.5.3 the only reason I
> can think of to allow working directory changes to propagate is gone

This reasoning is utterly wrong.

We often begin exploring a solution while on one branch (perhaps
'master'), starting with small changes in the work tree, and
then realize that it needs to be worked on in a separate branch:

	$ edit some work tree files
	$ git branch new-topic
        $ git checkout new-topic

Or maybe we would realize that the fix we started to work on
while on 'master' also applies to 'maint', and do the checkout
without creating a new branch:

	$ edit some work tree files
	$ git checkout maint

In either case, it is a _good_ thing that you can take your
local changes with you when you switch branches, without extra
stash/unstash sequence, and I do not think this is going to
change.

About the "lost remove", I think it is related to the fact that
we try to be usable in a sparsely checked out work tree, and
during a two-way merge (aka "switching branches") we consider a
missing file equivalent to an unmodified file and this might be
a bug in the logic to implement it there.  I haven't checked
this conjecture and won't have time now to do the digging myself
(you're welcome to do the digging yourself in the meantime).  It
may turn out to be a trivial change, but I dunno at this moment.