On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:43 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> I think it should be reverted from 'next' because of the unintended
> change to the behavior of "git diff HEAD".
Ah. That is indeed unintended. I still don't know how this change
affects that (but that's probably why it slipped through in
Hi,
Duy Nguyen wrote:
> $ echo haha > new; git add -N
> $ git diff
> diff --git a/new b/new
> index e69de29..5ad28e2 100644
> --- a/new
> +++ b/new
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +haha
>
> Notice that the diff does not tell you that 'new' is a new file. The
> diff with this pat
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:39:42PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi Duy,
>
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>
> > Due to the implementation detail of intent-to-add entries. The current
> > "git diff" (i.e. no treeish or --cached argument) would show the
> > changes in the i-t-a file, but it does n
Hi Duy,
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> Due to the implementation detail of intent-to-add entries. The current
> "git diff" (i.e. no treeish or --cached argument) would show the
> changes in the i-t-a file, but it does not mark the file as new, while
> "diff --cached" would mark the file as new whi
Due to the implementation detail of intent-to-add entries. The current
"git diff" (i.e. no treeish or --cached argument) would show the
changes in the i-t-a file, but it does not mark the file as new, while
"diff --cached" would mark the file as new while showing its content
as empty.
One evidence
5 matches
Mail list logo
