"Robert P. J. Day" writes:
>> If this were --include=untracked vs --include=all, then I'd say your
>> suggestion will violate the usual expectation of "on the command
>> line, last one wins", but "--include-untracked" and "--all" are
>> spelled very differently, and may
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thomas Gummerer writes:
>
> > This is fine when --include-untracked is specified first, as --all
> > implies --include-untracked, but I guess the behaviour could be a
> > bit surprising if --all is specified first and
Thomas Gummerer writes:
> This is fine when --include-untracked is specified first, as --all
> implies --include-untracked, but I guess the behaviour could be a bit
> surprising if --all is specified first and --include-untracked later
> on the command line.
>
> Changing
On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> On 09/29, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > from the man page:
> >
> > "If the --include-untracked option is used, all untracked files
> > are also stashed and then cleaned up with git clean, leaving the
> > working directory in a very clean state. If
On 09/29, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> from the man page:
>
> "If the --include-untracked option is used, all untracked files are
> also stashed and then cleaned up with git clean, leaving the working
> directory in a very clean state. If the --all option is used instead
>
from the man page:
"If the --include-untracked option is used, all untracked files are
also stashed and then cleaned up with git clean, leaving the working
directory in a very clean state. If the --all option is used instead
^^^
6 matches
Mail list logo