In article <7v1vgqksoz.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ron Garret <ron1@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- Makefile
No, 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
--
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