From: Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:59:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Branches & directories
Message-ID: <4E89CDCA.9030802@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE1pOi2xmVHrVJcC85wvCv=anhn_kYizyUMpUVZF4EE33RoGmg@mail.gmail.com>

Hilco Wijbenga skrev 2011-10-03 09.15:
> 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