On 5 October 2012 12:20, Sitaram Chamarty <sitar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 7:05 AM, demerphq <demer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5 October 2012 03:00, Andrew Ardill <andrew.ard...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5 October 2012 07:20, Marco Craveiro <marco.crave...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Similar but not quite; the idea is that you know that there is some
>>>> code (I'm just talking about files here, so lets ignore hunks for the
>>>> moment) which is normally checked in but for a period of time you want
>>>> it ignored. So you don't want it git ignored but at the same time you
>>>> don't want to see these files in the list of modified files.
>>> What is the reason git ignore is no good in this case? Is it simply
>>> that you can't see the ignored files in git status, or is it that
>>> adding and removing entries to .gitignore is too cumbersome? If it's
>>> the latter you could probably put together a simple shell wrapper to
>>> automate the task, as otherwise it seems like git ignore does what you
>> Git ignore doesn't ignore tracked files.
> would 'git update-index --assume-unchanged' work in this case? Didn't
> see it mentioned in any of the replies so far (but I have never used
> it myself)
>From the help page:
This option can be also used as a coarse file-level mechanism to
ignore uncommitted changes in tracked files (akin to what .gitignore
does for untracked files).
Seems like it does everything required. I tested and it correctly
hides changes that I want hidden. The only thing I can't see how to do
is get git status to show files with the assume unchanged bit set. I
think there is no way currently, but that might be a nice addition to
make the initial request feature complete. It could show either all
files with the bit set, or files with the bit set that have been
changed (or this could be configurable).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html