On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
> According to that definition, because "master" has dir/file1, and the
> index is unchanged since "next", we would add dir/file1 to the index, and
> then check dir/file1 and dir/file3 out of the index. Hence, we end up
> resurrecting dir/file3 out of the index, even though "master" does not
> have that path.
>
> This is somewhat surprising.
That is surprising! It explains something I saw just yesterday which
closely mirrors your recipe.
> It may make sense to tweak the semantics a little bit. We can grab the
> paths out of the named tree ("master" in this case), update the index, and
> update the working tree with only with these paths we grabbed from the
> named tree. By doing so, we will keep the local modification to dir/file3
> (in this case, the modification is to "delete", but the above observation
> hold equally true if dir/file3 were modified).
That seems sane.
> An alternative semantics could be to first remove paths that match the
> given pathspec from the index, then update the index with paths taken from
> the named tree, and update the working tree. "git checkout master dir"
> would then mean "replace anything currently in dir with whatever is in dir
> in master". It is more dangerous, and it can easily emulated by doing:
This is equally sane, but is probably closer to my expectation.
[snip]
> * This is a behaviour change, but it may qualify as a bugfix. I dunno.
Personally, I lean towards it being a bugfix.
-John
--
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