Re: Proposed git mv behavioral change

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Oct 20, 2007, 06:40 UTC
Message-ID: <20071020064003.GA30605@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20071020063628.GV14735@spearce.org>

On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 02:36:28AM -0400, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> So lets say I make a change in my Makefile that changes the name
> of a source file to be more descriptive of that file's contents.
> I've reviewed the Makefile change *and* done the file rename,
> but I'm still not done reviewing the stuff in the file.  (Yea,
> maybe that should be two different commits, but maybe not, lets
> not get into that as it depends very much on context.)

Right. So the exact state you have in your index never actually existed
in your working tree. But that's OK if:
  - the changes are trivial and obviously correct
  - you're not actually planning on _committing_ that, you just want to
    build the commit using the index
And in those cases, git-stash is either, respectively, overkill or
totally useless.

Please ignore everything I said on this subject before today...I obviously hadn't figured out what was going on.

-Peff