From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Proposed git mv behavioral change Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:58:38 -0400 Message-ID: <20071019035838.GB18717@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20071019015419.GV14735@spearce.org> <20071019031959.GE14735@spearce.org> <20071019032407.GA10622@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7E3647F4-E61C-4FBE-9AA7-81CDBE324308@MIT.EDU> <20071019033500.GB10697@coredump.intra.peff.net> <93BF5798-F1C3-48EE-8233-A0F111BF8138@MIT.EDU> <20071019034704.GB11095@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Witten X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 19 05:59:16 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Iij0h-0004QH-EE for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:58:55 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966533AbXJSD6o (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:58:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S966512AbXJSD6m (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:58:42 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:2876 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966425AbXJSD6k (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:58:40 -0400 Received: (qmail 8898 invoked by uid 111); 19 Oct 2007 03:58:39 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:58:39 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:58:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 11:53:05PM -0400, Michael Witten wrote: >> 3. You don't want to commit your changes, so you git-mv in the index >> only without involving your dirty working tree file. > That's exactly what the original poster wanted. > > It's not unreasonable. I guess. I really think git-stash is your friend here. But you can still do step (3) with git-update-index (I'll leave the exact details as an exercise for the reader). -Peff