Hi Eeli, thanks for the clarification cc'ing the list. On 14/12/2019 11:58, Eeli wrote: > Often in my work I need to checkout my coworkers’ branches. When that happens, I will likely have some uncommitted changes I would need to commit or stash. > > This purely an ergonomic feature I’m suggesting. > > So instead of git stash or git commit -m ”wip” and later git stash pop or git reset HEAD~1, I could just run git checkout -b —autostash other-branch, do the work on the other branch and return to my previous state with git checkout —autopop my-branch. Also, c/would a detached head (rather than using -b) be part of the options if you are just doing a review? > > Apologies if I messed up my Git usage, I have used Git through Magit for too long. > >> On 14. Dec 2019, at 1.12 PM, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> wrote: >> >> 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
