2009/3/27 James Byrne <[email protected]> > > .. > > I initially pull from the remote repository and then checkout -b > workcopy from the master. At this point workcopy and master are > identical. In workcopy I modify x.rb and y.rb. I then add/commit x.rb > in workcopy. Next I checkout back to master. > > From what i had read about git I believed that all the modifications > that I made to x and y in workcopy only affectedi workcopy; and that > those files in the master branch were still pristine as when they had > been pulled. However, when I checkouted the master branch this is what > I saw: > > $ git co master > M y.rb > Switched to branch master > $ > $ git status > # On branch master > # Changed but not updated: > # (use "git add <file>..." to update what will be committed) > # > # modified: y.rb > no changes added to commit (use "git add" and/or "git commit -a") > $
This is because you had not committed the change to y.rb. A checkout will not overwrite modified (uncommitted) files. You should have seen a message when you switched to the master warning that y was modified (M filename). You will think this is the optimum behaviour the when you forget to commit before a switch. > > A git diff on y.rb in both branches produced identical output. This > clearly indicates that the changes that I made in the working branch > affected the master branch too. This is something that I thought not > possible. Was I wrong in my belief or am I doing something wrong in my > implementation. The master has not been affected, it is just the modified file left there. > > > Further, I noted that x.rb had disappeared from view on the master even > though it had only been commited on the workcopy branch. However, when > I ran merge on the master then I saw this: > I do not understand how x.rb had disappeared from the master, you should see the original x.rb. If x.rb was a new file on the branch then you would expect it to be missing from the master. Colin > > $ git merge workcopy > Updating bb48bcc..339ec9a > y.rb: needs update > Fast forward > > ...x.rb | 3 + > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > $ > > I am somewhat confused by this behaviour. If what I do in a branch but > do not commit impacts the master while changes commited in the branch > simply disappear from view in the master then what is the advantage to > branching? What am I doing wrong? > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
