Re: Branches & directories
- From
- Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 3, 2011, 14:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4E89CDCA.9030802@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAE1pOi2xmVHrVJcC85wvCv=anhn_kYizyUMpUVZF4EE33RoGmg@mail.gmail.com>
Hilco Wijbenga skrev 2011-10-03 09.15:
Show 18 quoted lines
> On 2 October 2011 20:07, Jeff King<peff@peff.net> wrote: > <snip/> >> Or did you really mean your example literally, as in you run two >> checkouts back to back, without running anything in between, and the >> second checkout restores the state before the first one. In that case, >> yes, it would be correct to keep the old timestamps. But this is an >> optimization that can only apply in a few very specific cases. And >> moreoever, how can git know when it is OK to apply that optimization? It >> has no idea what commands you might have run since the last time we were >> at "master". > Yes, I meant it literally. And, no, Git could not possibly know so it > would have to be optional behaviour. But it's probably a lot of work > for (for most people) little gain. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
I wouldn't use stash for that. Just regular commit/amend and your timestamps should be fine. Alternative submit a patch for either the save or create subcommands of stash. That would not be very hard (technically) and no one needs to mess with the timestamps; they will just survive.
-- robin