Hilco Wijbenga skrev 2011-10-03 09.15:
On 2 October 2011 20:07, Jeff King<peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip/>
Or did you really mean your example literally, as in you run two
checkouts back to back, without running anything in between, and the
second checkout restores the state before the first one. In that case,
yes, it would be correct to keep the old timestamps. But this is an
optimization that can only apply in a few very specific cases. And
moreoever, how can git know when it is OK to apply that optimization? It
has no idea what commands you might have run since the last time we were
at "master".
Yes, I meant it literally. And, no, Git could not possibly know so it
would have to be optional behaviour. But it's probably a lot of work
for (for most people) little gain.
--
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
I wouldn't use stash for that. Just regular commit/amend and your
timestamps should be fine. Alternative submit a patch for either
the save or create subcommands of stash. That would not be very
hard (technically) and no one needs to mess with the timestamps;
they will just survive.
-- robin
--
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