From: Tim Uckun Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:36:01 GMT Subject: Re: can anybody explain the following to a git noob? 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. > 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.