From: Eric Raible <raible@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:49:54 GMT
Subject: Re: RFC: perhaps a "new file" should not be deleted by "git reset --hard"
Message-ID: <279b37b20809111649h77666a46u362dddfa1b40e0ca@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080911233941.GP4829@genesis.frugalware.org>

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 02:24:51PM -0700, Eric Raible <raible@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My question is why "git reset --hard" can't make a special case for
>> _newly added_ tracked files.  After all, "git status" knows that they're
>> "new files", and "git reset --hard" could realize that wiping them off
>> the face of the earth isn't the most helpful thing possible.
>
> I rarely need this, but I use 'git read-tree -m HEAD' before git reset
> --hard in case I want such a behaviour.

What advantages does "git read-tree -m HEAD" have over "git reset" or
"git rm --cached <file list>"?