Re: Individual file snapshots
- From
- Ron Garret <ron1@flownet.com>
- Date
- Feb 12, 2010, 22:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ron1-0EA861.14414712022010@news.gmane.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v1vgqksoz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In article <7v1vgqksoz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 28 quoted lines
> Ron Garret <ron1@flownet.com> writes:
>
> >> Or if a series of commits seem to have gone bad:
> >>
> >> git commit -a -m "Well, that didn't work."
> >> git branch failed-experiment
> >> git reset --hard origin/master # or other good state
> >>
> >> You can of course replace the -a to commit with the needed "git add
> >> <file>"
> >> commands and leave off the -m to leave real messages about why it went bad
> >> using $EDITOR.
> >
> > That would require a separate branch for every snapshot, no? I want
> > this to be lightweight. It's not so much the creation of a zillion
> > branches that bothers me, but having to come up with a new name every
> > time would be a real hassle.
>
> Perhaps "stash"?
>
> Usually stash is used to store "diff between stash@{N}^1 and stash@{N}",
> and "stash pop" or "stash apply" are geared toward that usage. But you
> can use it as a way to keep snapshots. You would be interacting with
> the stash differently, though. E.g.
>
> git diff stash@{4}
> git diff origin/master stash@{2}
> git checkout stash -- MakefileNo, I don't really want to usurp the stash for this. But I think a separate disjoint branch (with an empty root) will work. I think I can use git checkout to move the files back and forth between the main branch and the snapshot branch without causing merge problems if the snapshot branch is disjoint.
rg