Hi! (tl;dr - I disagree but this issue is perhaps not so important in practice) On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:14:26PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I do not agree with your `git reset --hard` at all. With the > command, the user demands "no matter what, I want get rid of any > funny state in my working tree so that I can start my work from that > specified commit (default to HEAD)". Yeah, but this normally concerns only tracked files; `git reset --hard` does not imply `git clean`. I'm worried when a tool normally behaves in a way that follows an apparent rule but its behavior is defined in such a way that in a corner case this rule is violated (but it's ok since it's a - non-obvious - implication of the specification). > Imagine that this is you did to arrive that "funny state": > > $ git rm foo ;# foo used to be tracked and in HEAD > $ cp /somewhere/else/foo foo > $ cp /somewhere/else/bar bar ;# bar is not in HEAD > $ cp /somewhere/else/bar baz ;# baz is in HEAD > ... do various other things ... > > and then "git reset --hard". At that point, "foo" and "bar" are not > tracked and completely unrelated to the project. "baz" is tracked > and have unrelated contents from that of "HEAD". > > In order to satisfy your desire to go back to the state of HEAD with > minimal collateral amage, we need to get rid of the updated "foo" > and "baz" and replace them with those from HEAD. We do not have to > touch "bar" so we leave it as-is. Perhaps we misundertood each other here. I certainly don't care to keep local changes as a whole - a command behaving like that wouldn't be very useful for me; for me, the crucial distinction is between tracked and untracked files. Therefore, from my viewpoint it's fine to overwrite baz, but not to overwrite foo. > And the "killed" case is just like "foo" and "baz". If the state > you want to go back to with "--hard" has a directory (a file) where > your working tree's funny state has a file (a directory), the local > cruft needs to go away to satisify your request. > > I do not mind if you are proposing a different and new kind of reset > that fails if it has to overwrite any local changes (be it tracked > or untracked), but that is not "reset --hard". It is something else. Hmm, I suppose the assumption I would prefer is that "the only command that will destroy (currently) untracked data without warning is `git clean`"; even though (unlike in case of git stash) the current reset --hard behavior wouldn't surprise me, I suspect it can be a bad surprise for many Git users when they hit this situation; but since I didn't notice any actual complaint yet, so I don't care enough to press this further for now anyway. :-) -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken -- 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