> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Dima Kagan <dima.kagan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> David Symonds wrote: >>> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Dima Kagan <dima.kagan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> That's a subjective point of view :) I'm coming from the SVN world and uncommitted changes on one branch don't affect other branches. Is there a way I can achieve this behavior with git? >>> If you *really* want SVN's behaviour of "branches", just copy your >>> whole working tree (including the .git directory) and start making >>> changes in that. Then they'll be completely separate and you can just >>> 'cd' between them. >>> >>> >>> Dave. >> What's the point of using git then? :) I like the way branches are created and switched in git, but I would like each branch to preserve it's own history of modifications. Is that too much to ask? :) > > Preserving history is called "committing", which is how git branches > preserve their own history. You said you don't want to commit changes. > You can't have it both ways. :-P > > > Dave. Not quite. :) The current branch knows what files have been modified without committing the changes. Why should other branches be aware of these changes until I commit them? -- 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
