Re: Git issue - ignoring changes to tracked file with assume-unchanged
- From
Jakub Narębski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 7, 2016, 22:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <9784a23f-2f44-33c7-5055-c6d66e779471@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqy413oysp.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
W dniu 01.11.2016 o 19:11, Junio C Hamano pisze:
Show 23 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: >> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 10:28:57AM +0000, Halde, Faiz wrote: >> >>> I frequently use the following command to ignore changes done in a file >>> >>> git update-index --assume-unchanged somefile >>> >>> Now when I do a pull from my remote branch and say the file 'somefile' >>> was changed locally and in remote, git will abort the merge saying I >>> need to commit my changes of 'somefile'. >>> >>> But isn't the whole point of the above command to ignore the changes >>> within the file? >> >> No. The purpose of --assume-unchanged is to promise git that you will >> not change the file, so that it may skip checking the file contents in >> some cases as an optimization. > > That's correct. > > The next anticipated question is "then how would I tell Git to > ignore changes done to a file locally by me?", whose short answer is > "You don't", of course.
Well, you can always use --skip-worktree. It is a better fit than using --assume-unchanged, because at least you wouldn't loose your precious local changes (which happened to me).
OTOH it doesn't solve your issue of --skip-worktree / --assume-unchanged blocking operation (pull in your case, stash is what I noticed problem with when using --skip-worktree).
But --skip-worktree is still workaround...
-- Jakub Narębski