On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Tzu-Jung Lee <roylee17@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Is this an intended behavior? > > Yes, I think you are talking about the case where "the current index does > not match the current HEAD, but it does match the tree we are switching > to" case. In that case we take the contents of switched-to branch. > > It is the last case in the table in this old design document: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/4641 > Cool! It's really valuable resource about the internals. Do all the entries of the matrix still hold true today? Maybe we can have an updated version put in the manual or other official documentation. > bug ignore the terminology (stage#). Read only the body of the table, with > the understanding that the three entries in each row talk about the state > for the same path in the index entry, the tree entry in the current HEAD, > and the tree entry in the switched-to branch. Also the table does not talk > about the checking performed on the working tree file, but assume that we > do not overwrite it when the resulting entry in the index does not match > what you have there. > > The reason we allow branch switching in this case, instead of failing, is > so that you can be in a state where you applied the same change (relative > to the current branch to the branch you are switching to) lying around > already in your workspace and safely switch to the new branch without > losing any work (after all, the content matches). I understand it's a safe behavior in the sense that all the 'content' are preserved. But the 'work' may still lost in another sense. Consider the extended scenario. I was in the middle of doing... kind of 'in-commit-bisection' (btw, how would you call this?). Finding out which are the guilty changes in a giant patch that has large number of changes including binary updates. (good) (good) (bad) index HEAD switchd-to A1 A1 A2 B2 B1 B2 C2 C1 C2 D2 D1 D2 E1 E1 E2 ... I accidentally switch to the switched-to branch without committing the intermediate status. The 'work' was gone, and I had no idea how to bring it back. > By the way, the first six lines of your original message that describes > "saving and applying" is not correct. -- 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