From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Proposed git mv behavioral change Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:40:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20071020064003.GA30605@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <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> <1192859748.13347.146.camel@g4mdd.entnet> <20071020062400.GA30388@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20071020063628.GV14735@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ari Entlich , Michael Witten , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Oct 20 08:40:20 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 1Ij80Q-0007bG-Rn for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:40:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761869AbXJTGkH (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:40:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760927AbXJTGkH (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:40:07 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:1562 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760724AbXJTGkG (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:40:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 19102 invoked by uid 111); 20 Oct 2007 06:40:04 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:40:04 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:40:03 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071020063628.GV14735@spearce.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 02:36:28AM -0400, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > So lets say I make a change in my Makefile that changes the name > of a source file to be more descriptive of that file's contents. > I've reviewed the Makefile change *and* done the file rename, > but I'm still not done reviewing the stuff in the file. (Yea, > maybe that should be two different commits, but maybe not, lets > not get into that as it depends very much on context.) Right. So the exact state you have in your index never actually existed in your working tree. But that's OK if: - the changes are trivial and obviously correct - you're not actually planning on _committing_ that, you just want to build the commit using the index And in those cases, git-stash is either, respectively, overkill or totally useless. Please ignore everything I said on this subject before today...I obviously hadn't figured out what was going on. -Peff