Re: Git issue - ignoring changes to tracked file with assume-unchanged

["Jakub Narębski" <jnareb@gmail.com>]

W dniu 01.11.2016 o 19:11, Junio C Hamano pisze:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 10:28:57AM +0000, Halde, Faiz wrote:
>>
>>> I frequently use the following command to ignore changes done in a file
>>>
>>> git update-index --assume-unchanged somefile
>>>
>>> Now when I do a pull from my remote branch and say the file 'somefile'
>>> was changed locally and in remote, git will abort the merge saying I
>>> need to commit my changes of 'somefile'.
>>>
>>> But isn't the whole point of the above command to ignore the changes
>>> within the file?
>>
>> No. The purpose of --assume-unchanged is to promise git that you will
>> not change the file, so that it may skip checking the file contents in
>> some cases as an optimization.
> 
> That's correct.  
> 
> The next anticipated question is "then how would I tell Git to
> ignore changes done to a file locally by me?", whose short answer is
> "You don't", of course.

Well, you can always use --skip-worktree.  It is a better fit than using
--assume-unchanged, because at least you wouldn't loose your precious
local changes (which happened to me).

OTOH it doesn't solve your issue of --skip-worktree / --assume-unchanged
blocking operation (pull in your case, stash is what I noticed problem
with when using --skip-worktree).

But --skip-worktree is still workaround...

-- 
Jakub Narębski