On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Martin von Zweigbergk writes:
>
>> More importantly, when is it desirable not to delete deleted entries?
>
> When I am trying to check out contents of Documentation/ directory
> as of an older edition because we made mistakes updating the fi
Martin von Zweigbergk writes:
> More importantly, when is it desirable not to delete deleted entries?
When I am trying to check out contents of Documentation/ directory
as of an older edition because we made mistakes updating the files
in recent versions, with "git checkout v1.9.0 Documentation/
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Martin von Zweigbergk writes:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk
>> wrote:
>>> Slightly off topic, but another difference (or somehow another aspect
>>> of the same difference?) that has tripped me up a few times is
Martin von Zweigbergk writes:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk
> wrote:
>> Slightly off topic, but another difference (or somehow another aspect
>> of the same difference?) that has tripped me up a few times is that
>> "git checkout $rev ." only affects added and modified
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk
wrote:
> Slightly off topic, but another difference (or somehow another aspect
> of the same difference?) that has tripped me up a few times is that
> "git checkout $rev ." only affects added and modified files (in $rev
> compared to HEAD), bu
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> [...]These
> two commands, "reset" and "checkout", share that the source we grab
> the blobs out of only need to be a tree and does not have to be a
> commit, and the only difference between them is where the blobs we
> grabbed out of that
Martin von Zweigbergk writes:
> Would the correct fix be to
> first make "git reset --hard -- $path" work (*sigh*)? I have never
> understood why that doesn't (shouldn't) work.
What does it even mean, even when you are on an existing commit, to
hard reset partially?
Perhaps you looking for "git
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Martin von Zweigbergk writes:
>
>> In cases where HEAD is not supposed to be updated, there is no reason
>> that "git reset" should require a commit, a tree should be enough. So
>> make "git reset $rev^{tree}" work just like "git reset $rev", except
>> that the former wi
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Martin von Zweigbergk writes:
>
>> In cases where HEAD is not supposed to be updated, there is no reason
>> that "git reset" should require a commit, a tree should be enough. So
>> make "git reset $rev^{tree}" work just like "git reset $re
Martin von Zweigbergk writes:
> In cases where HEAD is not supposed to be updated, there is no reason
> that "git reset" should require a commit, a tree should be enough. So
> make "git reset $rev^{tree}" work just like "git reset $rev", except
> that the former will not update HEAD (since there
In cases where HEAD is not supposed to be updated, there is no reason
that "git reset" should require a commit, a tree should be enough. So
make "git reset $rev^{tree}" work just like "git reset $rev", except
that the former will not update HEAD (since there is no commit to
point it to).
Disallow
11 matches
Mail list logo
