On 1/24/26 18:25, Bill Pragnell wrote:

>> Make sure you use `git add <filename>` for anything you want change
>> tracking enabled.

    And have a look at the ".gitignore" file documentation.

> Yes, this was my first thought - you need to commit your changes to the current
> branch or nothing gets tracked. Use 'git add <...>' to stage the changes, 'git
> commit' to commit them.

    I use this short-circuit:

$ vim groundbase.inc
     ... do some changes, exit vim
     ... run the tracing, look at the result
     ... if the result look correct, then
$ git commit -m "increase holes diameter" groudbase.inc

    And now, I can run the big batch who make my current
    projet: http://maison.tth.netlib.re/v/hc/full.mp4 :)




-- 
**                                                            **
*                      tTh des Bourtoulots                     *
*                  http://maison.tth.netlib.re/                *
**                                                            **

Post a reply to this message

hi,

tTh <tth### [at] noneinvalid> wrote:
> ...
>     And now, I can run the big batch who make my current
>     projet: http://maison.tth.netlib.re/v/hc/full.mp4 :)

v nice, "sweet"..


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

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 learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

> On 1/24/26 18:25, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>     And have a look at the ".gitignore" file documentation.

Indeed, in that case I would tend to highly suspect the gitignore, which can
feature very wide filters preventing files of some type of some naming patterns
to be normally flagged as untracked... OR you may also have git stash->pop
....ped over several branches. because stash can act as a bucket to port things
from one branch to another.

If you want to have other graphic views of your repos and stash black box, you
can also try :

* Gitlens with VScode/VSCodium or
* Git kraken, which looks awesome but somewhat limits its longterm featureset in
the long run.

-So Git-Cola rules for its cross platform, and free as in freesdom policies...
But mostly, don't forget its "DAG" visualisation for all your branches.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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.

An untracked file is just a big change after all.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 17:44:27 EST, Bill Pragnell wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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.
> 
> 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 learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 2026-01-26 18:44 (-4), Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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

On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 10:02:14 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> 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.

Can you describe the workflow you're using, step by step - commands 
executed, and so on - in order to try to reproduce what you're seeing?


-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

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.

Bill

Post a reply to this message