Re: Git branches - confusing behavior

[Dima Kagan <dima.kagan@gmail.com>]

> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Dima Kagan <dima.kagan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Symonds wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Dima Kagan <dima.kagan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's a subjective point of view :) I'm coming from the SVN world and uncommitted changes on one branch don't affect other branches. Is there a way I can achieve this behavior with git?
>>> If you *really* want SVN's behaviour of "branches", just copy your
>>> whole working tree (including the .git directory) and start making
>>> changes in that. Then they'll be completely separate and you can just
>>> 'cd' between them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave.
>> What's the point of using git then? :) I like the way branches are created and switched in git, but I would like each branch to preserve it's own history of modifications. Is that too much to ask? :)
> 
> Preserving history is called "committing", which is how git branches
> preserve their own history. You said you don't want to commit changes.
> You can't have it both ways.  :-P
> 
> 
> Dave.

Not quite. :) The current branch knows what files have been modified without committing the changes.
Why should other branches be aware of these changes until I commit them?