On 13/12/2019 17:16, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes: > >> Isn't this meant to be something similar to the --no-merge option for >> checkout. That is: I am where I am, but really I want this to be on >> branch X. Or is the --no-merge option meant to be something else? > Is there a --no-merge option to "git checkout"? My mistake. I misremembered or misunderstood. I'd been looking at both checkout and branch man pages to see if there was a way out of the do the 'rewind current branch and create new branch at current state' dance. I thought I'd seen 'no-merge' as a 'checkout -b' style option. > I know the reason > why I invented "git checkout --merge" was because I wanted the > command to carry more changes in the working tree than the default > behaviour would while checking out another branch, but I do not > think I added an option to do less, i.e. forbid it from carrying any > change in the working tree while checking out another branch. For creating a new branch when in a dirty state (based on some other start point than HEAD), there should be an option for numpties that have already started digging the hole for themselves (stick's hand up apologetically)... I was hoping that @rottis would clarify if his request has the same symptoms. -- Philip
