From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: checkout and rm Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:00:02 -0700 Message-ID: <7v4pi62l25.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <4F2CF06E-CCC6-4597-A1BF-663BC36B9A94@ShopWiki.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Jenkins X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Sep 08 00:00:23 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 1ITlsA-0004Pu-UV for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:00:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758356AbXIGWAL (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:00:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758335AbXIGWAL (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:00:11 -0400 Received: from rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.210.124.37]:49629 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758253AbXIGWAJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:00:09 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44221304AD; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:00:27 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <4F2CF06E-CCC6-4597-A1BF-663BC36B9A94@ShopWiki.com> (Jeff Jenkins's message of "Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:59:14 -0400") 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: Jeff Jenkins 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.