Re: [RFC] New command: 'git snapshot'.

From: Ulrik Sverdrup <ulrik.sverdrup@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 11, 2009, 00:05 UTC
Message-ID: <a1b6cb1b0902101605l75c17e64qf9b919264b8d550d@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a1b6cb1b0902101558s7df025c7hfe078638452413c@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Ulrik Sverdrup <ulrik.sverdrup@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>> > How is it different from "git stash create"?
>>
>> Git stash doesn't touch untracked files, whereas git snapshot would.
>> Take another closer look at the table in the original post titled
>> "What are the differences between 'git stash' and 'git snapshot'?"
>>
>> -Geoffrey Lee
>
> I'm understanding this just as I read this, but it seems that implementing a
> git snapshot (I'm myself interested), could be done quickly with a new git.
> (When was git stash create introduced? I don't know it?)
>
> Something like this:
> cp .git/index .git/tmp-index
> GIT_INDEX_FILE=.git/tmp-index
> git add -N .
> git stash create

Ok I didn't test this. Stash creation fails because the add -N status is not quite "tracked but no content staged", but rather you _have_ to stage the files at a later point. git add -N is just a reminder thing?

Error output: plugin-gui.log: not added yet fatal: git-write-tree: error building trees Cannot save the current index state

Shame, I wish the above script worked.

Ulrik Sverdrup

Show 8 quoted lines

>
> So we use add -N to put all files into tracked but unstaged by default, but we
> keep our old index. Now stash is ready to save off the working directory, and
> further logic has to be applied on the returned commit to save it off..
>
>
> Ulrik Sverdrup
>