Re: can anybody explain the following to a git noob?
- From
Tim Uckun <timuckun@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 22, 2009, 11:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <855e4dcf0905220436h1b6fa632q7804c98bf09b324c@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <4A16822A.2060404@viscovery.net>
> > Did test_new contain ignored files?
No. I put the entire transcript in the first email. I did not tell git to ignore anything and there were no .git directories in the test folder.
Show 5 quoted lines
> In this case, when you checkout the > branch that does not have test_new, only the tracked files are removed; > the ignored (i.e untracked) files remain. Therefore, after the checkout > you still have a test_new directory. >
As far as I can tell all the files are tracked after I do a commit.
I can understand why it put the original test directory back when I changed to the master branch but I don't understand why it's missing a subdirectory. I don't think the test_new directory should be in the master branch at all but I guess I can kind of sort of see why git might not remove it. What I can't understand at all is why it's missing subdirectories.
I hate to say this but I tried the exact same thing with mercurial in the last half hour and it did exactly what I thought it should do. The master had the test directory but not the test_new and the branch had the test_new directory but not the test. No subdirectories were missing out of either one.