Checkout file without changing index?

Checkout file without changing index?

[Piotr Krukowiecki]

Hi,

what is the standard/recommended way for updating a file to given version?

I was familiar with "git checkout revision -- file".

But it updates both working tree and index. I had some changes in
index (staged) and "git checkout HEAD -- file" silently overwritten
it. Well, probably my mistake, it's documented.

After searching a bit I found "git show revision:file > file". But
it's problematic:
1. works only for 1 file. "git show revision -- file" does something else
2. requires full path, so you need to specify "git show
revision:relative/to/top/dir/file"

If there's no other easy way, maybe we could add "--no-index" to
checkout: "git checkout --no-index revision -- file" (or similar -
maybe use options from git-reset).

My use case: I had some changes prepared in index and wanted to
compare the prepared version with some older version. The file was a
zip file plus we use LFS so there was no other way than to "checkout"
the file, unpack it and diff it.

-- 
Piotr Krukowiecki

Re: Checkout file without changing index?

[Junio C Hamano]

Piotr Krukowiecki <piotr.krukowiecki@gmail.com> writes:

> I was familiar with "git checkout revision -- file".
>
> But it updates both working tree and index. I had some changes in
> index (staged) and "git checkout HEAD -- file" silently overwritten
> it. Well, probably my mistake, it's documented.

We'd invite you to live on the leading edge and try

    $ git restore --source=<revision> <pathspec>

which by default checks things out only to the working tree, but not
to the index (you say --staged if you want to restore to the index,
and you say --worktree if you want to restore to the working tree,
or you can say both, which would be the same as "git checkout").

I think the new command is now on the 'pu' branch, but in a few
weeks hopefully it will appear on the 'next' branch.

Re: Checkout file without changing index?

[Piotr Krukowiecki]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:46 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Piotr Krukowiecki <piotr.krukowiecki@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I was familiar with "git checkout revision -- file".
> >
> > But it updates both working tree and index. I had some changes in
> > index (staged) and "git checkout HEAD -- file" silently overwritten
> > it. Well, probably my mistake, it's documented.
>
> We'd invite you to live on the leading edge and try
>
>     $ git restore --source=<revision> <pathspec>
>
> which by default checks things out only to the working tree, but not
> to the index (you say --staged if you want to restore to the index,
> and you say --worktree if you want to restore to the working tree,
> or you can say both, which would be the same as "git checkout").

Thanks, looks nice. git-checkout is a bit inconsistent at what it
does, and I understand the git-restore and git-switch are a better
replacement for it.


> I think the new command is now on the 'pu' branch, but in a few
> weeks hopefully it will appear on the 'next' branch.

Is it possible to get a Windows build?


-- 
Piotr Krukowiecki

Re: Checkout file without changing index?

[Philip Oakley]

Hi Piotr

On 24/04/2019 19:15, Piotr Krukowiecki wrote:
>> I think the new command is now on the 'pu' branch, but in a few
>> weeks hopefully it will appear on the 'next' branch.
> Is it possible to get a Windows build?
Dscho maintains a relatively recent merge with pu at his 
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git  shears/pu branch

https://public-inbox.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1904051528130.41@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet/ 
ref [1]

Philip

Re: Checkout file without changing index?

[Sitaram Chamarty]

On 24/04/2019 19.16, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Piotr Krukowiecki <piotr.krukowiecki@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> I was familiar with "git checkout revision -- file".
>>
>> But it updates both working tree and index. I had some changes in
>> index (staged) and "git checkout HEAD -- file" silently overwritten
>> it. Well, probably my mistake, it's documented.
> 
> We'd invite you to live on the leading edge and try
> 
>     $ git restore --source=<revision> <pathspec>
> 
> which by default checks things out only to the working tree, but not
> to the index (you say --staged if you want to restore to the index,
> and you say --worktree if you want to restore to the working tree,
> or you can say both, which would be the same as "git checkout").
> 
> I think the new command is now on the 'pu' branch, but in a few
> weeks hopefully it will appear on the 'next' branch.

I'm not in a position to use either of those on at least some of my
systems, but meanwhile, I thought I'd ask this: what is the difference
between this and "git show REF:PATH > PATH", in terms of side-effects.

(I.e., any differences other than looking cleaner, not having to repeat
"PATH" etc.)

thanks
sitaram

Re: Checkout file without changing index?

[Junio C Hamano]

Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm not in a position to use either of those on at least some of my
> systems, but meanwhile, I thought I'd ask this: what is the difference
> between this and "git show REF:PATH > PATH", in terms of side-effects.
>
> (I.e., any differences other than looking cleaner, not having to repeat
> "PATH" etc.)

For that matter, what's the difference between these two and

	git cat-file --filters REF:PATH >PATH

;-)

I think the major difference is that checkout and restore are facing
an end-user who is typing the command to the terminal interactively,
so it does not make it easy to deposit the contents to an arbitrary
path while taking pathspecs to allow multiple files to be checked
out.  On the other hand, these "get content for a single path out of
the odb and then write it out to wherever I want to" may be more
suited for scripting.

Between the two that are for the-content-at-a-single-path, I would
further expect "git show REF:PATH" output would be less reliable
over time, as we reserve the right to add frills to the output from
the command to make it a more pleasant experience to humans (e.g. it
is not totally inconceivable for the command to notice "ah, this is
a JavaScript source file, so let's pass it through a syntax-aware
highligher), as opposed to placing more emphasis on the byte for
byte fidelity, which is desired for components used in scripts.
Those who would want the latter should be using the plumbing
cat-file.