|
 |
On 2026-01-26 18:44 (-4), Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 23:56:33 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>
>>> The files README.md, gemcuts.pov, and gemcuts_description.txt were
>>> modified while one branch was checked out, and the changes show in the
>>> other branch as well.
>>
>> Hmm. I guess then we'd need to see what the status looks like from each
>> branch. What you're seeing isn't consistent with my experience, at least.
>
> I think that's what I would expect. If the changes don't have conflicts with any
> of the other branches then switching branches makes no difference, the changes
> will be left alone (unless there is a conflict, then git will warn you to commit
> your changes or lose them when switching branch). If you commit the changes to a
> branch, then you'll only see those changes on that branch - and now they won't
> be listed as changes by 'git status' any more.
This is exactly what I've seen since Sunday.
> An untracked file is just a big change after all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On 2026-01-26 02:00 (-4), Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 17:44:27 EST, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>
>> An untracked file is just a big change after all.
>
> But it looks like the file is tracked, so any changes to it made in one
> branch shouldn't affect other branches, unless they're either not tracked
> (which isn't the case) or in .gitignore (which would *probably* require it
> to have been explicitly added in some way, and I expect CR would know if
> he'd done that).
I'm sensing disagreement in what "tracked" means. Jim is using
"tracked" the way I've understood it, but Bill is describing the
behavior I'm seeing from git.
But .gitignore is one aspect of git that has never given me any surprises.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
