On samedi 02 janvier 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Christian Couder <chriscool@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > The purpose of this new option is to discard some of the last commits > > but to keep current changes in the work tree. > > > > The use case is when you work on something and commit that work. And > > then you work on something else that touches other files, but you don't > > commit it yet. Then you realize that what you commited when you worked > > on the first thing is not good or belongs to another branch. > > > > So you want to get rid of the previous commits (at least in the current > > branch) but you want to make sure that you keep the changes you have in > > the work tree. And you are pretty sure that your changes are > > independent from what you previously commited, so you don't want the > > reset to succeed if the previous commits changed a file that you also > > changed in your work tree. > > > > The table below shows what happens when running "git reset --option > > target" to reset the HEAD to another commit (as a special case "target" > > could be the same as HEAD) in the cases where "--merge" and "--keep" > > behave differently. > > I think this new option is unrelated to "--merge"; iow, the only relation > to it is that it is an option to the same command "git reset", so it is > related but it is related the same way and to the degree as "--mixed" is. > > Thinking about it even more, if the number of commits you are resetting > away is zero in your use case (i.e. target is HEAD), shouldn't this new > mode of operation degenerate to "--mixed"? So in that sense, it might > make sense to contrast it with "--mixed". > > But let's try not to contrast it with anything else, and see how well it > stands on its own. Ok, I removed parts of the commit messages that contrasted it with "--merge". [...] > > The following table shows what happens on unmerged entries: > > > > working index HEAD target working index HEAD > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > X U A B --keep (disallowed) > > X U A A --keep X A A > > In a sense, this is consistent with the above; the local change attempted > happens to be an unmerged result. > > But it is inconsistent with the intended use case you presented, which > leaves no room for unmerged entries to enter in the index to begin with. > It might be safer to error out on any unmerged entry in the index. I > dunno. Yeah I agree it might be safer, so I added a patch to disallow using --keep when there are unmerged entries. Thanks, Christian. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html