Re: git stash deletes/drops changes of

> From: "Thomas Rast" <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:56:50 PM
> Subject: Re: git stash deletes/drops changes of
> 
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> > Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch> writes:
> >
> > > So maybe it would be time to first make up our minds as to what
> > > --assume-unchanged should actually mean:
> > >
> > > * Ignore changes to a tracked file, but treat them as valuable.
> > >   In this case we'd have to make sure that failures like
> > >   git-stash's are handled properly.
> > >
> > > * Ignore changes to a tracked file, as in "who cares if it was
> > >   changed".
> > >
> > > * A very specific optimization for users who know what they are
> > >   doing.
> >
> > It has always been a promise the user makes to Git that the working
> > tree files that are marked as such will be kept identical to what is
> > in the index (hence there is no need for Git to check if they were
> > modified). And by extension, Git is now free to choose reading from
> > the working tree file when asked to read from blob object recorded
> > in the index for that path, or vice versa, because of that promise.
> >
> > It is not --ignore-changes bit, and has never been.  What are the
> > workflows that are helped if we had such a bit?  If we need to
> > support them, I think you need a real --ignore-changes bit, not
> > an abuse of --assume-unchanged.
> 
> I gather -- from #git -- that it's mostly used for config files, which
> have an annoying habit of being different from the repository.