Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> On 2026-01-30 22:42 (-4), Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 10:02:14 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> >>> On 2026-01-26 02:00 (-4), Jim Henderson wrote:
> >>>> But it looks like the file is tracked, so any changes to it made in one
> >>>> branch shouldn't affect other branches,
> >
> > Are we confusing our usage of 'change' perhaps? A 'change' to a file (in
> > git-speak) refers to an edit, without any git interaction, which is what I've
> > been assuming. A change to a branch is usually called a 'commit', and that will
> > indeed be unique to the branch.
> >
> >>> 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.
> >
> > I think git itself may also be confusing the issue here. 'Tracked' just means
> > the file has been added to the repo. If I add a new file to a project (without
> > git interaction - just make a new file within a repo), it is listed as
> > 'untracked' because it does not yet have an entry in the repo - its entire
> > contents are a 'change'. If I 'git add' and then 'git commit' that file, it is
> > then 'tracked' as part of that branch from that point on. But you could say that
> > even an 'untracked' file is tracked in the sense of git being aware of it,
> > because it appears in the status. Only files/directories in .gitignore are truly
> > untracked because edits to them will be ignored.
> >
> > Uncommitted changes (i.e. edits to a file) will not be affected by switching
> > branches, unless there is a conflict - i.e. if the edits apply to a section of a
> > file that is different in the two branches. In that case, git will not switch
> > branches, but instead tell you to commit or 'stash' your changes before
> > switching (stashing is saving your changes on a temp stack rather than
> > committing them).
> >
> > Sorry if I'm muddying the water here! I remember being quite confused about how
> > git worked when I first started using it.
>
> No, this is very helpful!  Thank you!
>
> (And I just watched a video about how pilots and air traffic controllers
> unknowingly disagreed on definitions of terms, and the result was a
> major crash, all souls lost.)

Yes, that's good clear explanations, the topic itself is complex, and there is a
threshold to it, a kind of "Gestalt" that needs to be reached before one starts
to feel you gain more with all that complexity despite it's learning curve, and
after you reach it, you don't have to become expert/power-user to be okay. you
end up developing a cautious intuition of what features to stay away from vs the
ones to dive into until you do have more time :-D  I still consider myself very
much of a beginner, but still admire and enjoy this tool!

Post a reply to this message