git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [BUG] git checkout <branch> allowed with uncommitted changes

From
HHHolger Hellmuth <hellmuth@ira.uka.de>
Date
Oct 14, 2011, 09:27 UTC
Message-ID
<4E980093.6040704@ira.uka.de>
In-Reply-To
<20111014013830.GA7258@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On 14.10.2011 03:38, Jeff King wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 06:56:14PM +0000, arQon wrote:
>
>> I'll give a shot, though I don't know how good it'll be. Off the top of my
>> head, I don't see any good way to explain the inconsistency with LOCAL CHANGES
>> sometimes preventing switches and sometimes not, based on what is to the user
>> an arbitrary set of rules that has nothing to do with the *current state* of
>> the worktree, but rather the state of those files in prior commits.
>
> The rules are fairly straightforward.

They are. But what arQon is getting at is that the normal switchability depends on something that is often a game of chance: Did I change a file that is different between the two branches? That is only known by the user for branches not far removed.

Now the obvious answer is: It doesn't matter because git tells you. At the right time to act upon it. But git says "M file" instead of what 'git status' would say: "# modified: file". Is there a reason for that? On one hand it should be familiar to svn users, on the other hand it is an inconsistency. And personally I always hated those cryptic status flags of svn

Another good point arQon made is that the case that you switched with forgotten local changes is more common than the case that you switched because you made changes in the wrong branch. If that were the case the warning that you have local changes should be more visible than that small "M file", at best something that looks similar to 'git status' output.

Now what really is more common depends on the individual. If you are a beginner or a semi-frequent user, then forgetting local changes is probably far more common, wheras most people on this mailing list would say its the other way round. It much depends on your commit frequency because the more often you commit, the less likely is that you would forget local changes.

Previous: Jeff KingNext: Victor Engmark
Message 22 of 36 in “[BUG] git checkout <branch> allowed with uncommitted changes”
  1. arQonOct 13, 2011
  2. Nguyen Thai Ngoc DuyOct 13, 2011
  3. Alexey ShumkinOct 13, 2011
  4. arQonOct 13, 2011
  5. Andreas EricssonOct 13, 2011
  6. arQonOct 13, 2011
  7. Carlos Martín NietoOct 13, 2011
  8. arQonOct 13, 2011
  9. Alexey ShumkinOct 13, 2011
  10. Jakub NarebskiOct 13, 2011
  11. arQonOct 13, 2011
  12. Carlos Martín NietoOct 13, 2011
  13. arQonOct 13, 2011
  14. Alexey ShumkinOct 13, 2011
  15. Alexey ShumkinOct 14, 2011
  16. Holger HellmuthOct 13, 2011
  17. Carlos Martín NietoOct 13, 2011
  18. arQonOct 13, 2011
  19. Junio C HamanoOct 13, 2011
  20. arQonOct 13, 2011
  21. Jeff KingOct 14, 2011
  22. Holger HellmuthOct 14, 2011
  23. Victor EngmarkOct 14, 2011
  24. arQonOct 16, 2011
  25. Junio C HamanoOct 16, 2011
  26. Holger HellmuthOct 16, 2011
  27. Carlos Martín NietoOct 13, 2011
  28. Sergei OrganovOct 13, 2011
  29. PJ WeisbergOct 13, 2011
  30. Holger HellmuthOct 13, 2011
  31. arQonOct 13, 2011
  32. Holger HellmuthOct 13, 2011
  33. Victor EngmarkOct 13, 2011
  34. arQonOct 13, 2011
  35. Victor EngmarkOct 14, 2011
  36. Michael J GruberOct 13, 2011

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.