Re: Aborting 'rebase main feat' removes unversioned files

>
> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > unpack_trees.  In fact, it traces back to (and before)
> >     fcc387db9b ("read-tree -m -u: do not overwrite or remove untracked
> > working tree files.", 2006-05-17)
> > which has additional commentary over at
> > https://lore.kernel.org/git/7v8xp1jc9h.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net/.
> > It appears that before this time, git happily nuked untracked files
> > and considered them expendable, in basically all cases.  However, this
> > patch continued considering them as expendable whenever opts->reset
> > was true.
>
> Thanks for digging.  Yes, the 'reset' bit was treated as the license
> to kill untracked working tree files and directories that get in the
> way in order to carry out the unpack_trees operation.
>
> > So, then...should we preserve untracked (and non-ignored) files in all
> > these cases?  This rebase case seems clear, but others might be less
> > clear....
>
> In short, the guiding principle ought to be that "checkout --force"
> and anything that is given "force" as a stronger override should be
> allowed to do whatever minimally necessary to match the end result
> in the working tree to what the command wants to show in the absense
> of these untracked paths.  And without being forced, untracked and
> unignored paths are precious and should cause commands to fail, if
> they need to be touched for the commands to complete what they are
> asked to do [*].
>
> "reset --hard HEAD" is an oddball.
>
> Naïvely, because it is often used as the way to tell Git to "no
> matter what, match the working tree to HEAD", even though it does
> not have an explicit "--force" on the command line, it feels that it
> also should be allowed to do whatever necessary to the working tree
> files.  And historically, that is what we wanted to implement.  If
> we suddenly made it "safer", I am sure a lot of existing things will
> break.
>
> But unfortunately, "--hard" means a bit more than that in the
> context of "reset", in that we want to reset in a way that is
> different from "--mixed" (reset the index only without touching the
> working tree) and "--soft" (do not touch the index or the working
> tree), more specifically, with "--hard", we want to reset both the
> index and the working tree to match the given committish (often
> "HEAD").  From that point of view, "reset --hard" that tries to
> preserve untracked and unignored paths, and "reset --force --hard"
> that does whatever necessary to untracked and unignored paths to
> match the working tree files, when they reset the index and the
> working tree to the named committish, may have made sense.  If we
> were designing the feature without any existing users, it is no
> brainer to imagine that our design would: (1) call the three 'reset'
> modes as "both", "index-only" and "neither", instead of "hard",
> "mixed" and "soft", and (2) require "--force" to touch untracked and
> unignored paths.
>
> And I think that may be a reasonable longer-term goal, but since we
> have existing users and scripts, we cannot go there overnight without
> devising a migration path.