我一直在使用 git --assume-unchanged yacs/settings/development.py 来忽略我的开发分支中的本地数据库配置文件。但是当我想切换分支(用于部署)时，我收到一个错误，提示我仍有待处理的更改:

% git checkout production
error: Your local changes to the following files would be overwritten by checkout:
    yacs/settings/development.py
Please, commit your changes or stash them before you can switch branches.
Aborting

这很烦人。我知道如何解决这个问题的唯一方法是把它藏起来:

% git stash
% git checkout production
% git merge dev
% ./deploy.sh
% git checkout dev
% git stash pop
# On branch dev
# Changes not staged for commit:
#   (use "git add <file>..." to update what will be committed)
#   (use "git checkout -- <file>..." to discard changes in working directory)
#
#   modified:   yacs/settings/development.py
#

但现在它又回到了索引中(呃)!这个工作流有更好的替代方案吗？

[我并不特别关心本地更改是否保留在本地(也就是说，如果它是生产分支也没关系)，我只是不想将它推送到远程存储库。]

最佳答案

你可以试试(git update-index man page):

git update-index --skip-worktree -- path

Skip-worktree bit can be defined in one (long) sentence: When reading an entry, if it is marked as skip-worktree, then Git pretends its working directory version is up to date and read the index version instead.

但是，如“git assume unchanged vs skip worktree”中所述:

Both options have problems. --assume-unchanged resets itself whenever the index gets discarded (e.g. git reset), so that will probably trip you up sooner or later. Same goes for --skip-worktree.

此外，请务必使用 Git 2.24(2014 年第 4 季度)。
自 2012 年以来(OP 的问题)，git stash 已移植到 C(它不再是 shell 脚本)但它(在其新实现中)必须(重新)学习编写刷新索引回到磁盘。

参见 commit 34933d0(2019 年 9 月 11 日)，作者 Thomas Gummerer (tgummerer)。
^{(由 Thomas Gummerer -- tgummerer -- merge 到 commit 34933d0，2019 年 9 月 20 日)}

stash: make sure to write refreshed cache

When converting stash into C, calls to 'git update-index --refresh' were replaced with the 'refresh_cache()' function.
That is fine as long as the index is only needed in-core, and not re-read from disk.

However in many cases we do actually need the refreshed index to be written to disk, for example 'merge_recursive_generic()' discards the in-core index before re-reading it from disk, and in the case of 'apply --quiet', the 'refresh_cache()' we currently have is pointless without writing the index to disk.

Always write the index after refreshing it to ensure there are no regressions in this compared to the scripted stash.
In the future we can consider avoiding the write where possible after making sure none of the subsequent calls actually need the refreshed cache, and it is not expected to be refreshed after stash exits or it is written somewhere else already.

警告，当 git stash 与 --quiet 一起使用时，该索引可能不会被正确重写:使用 Git 2.25(2020 年第一季度)，最近更新到“git stash pop "使命令清空 在使用“--quiet”选项运行时成为索引，该选项已得到更正。

参见 commit df53c80 的 Thomas Gummerer (tgummerer)(2019 年 11 月 13 日)。
^{(由 Junio C Hamano -- gitster -- merge 到 commit 3c3e5d0 中，2019 年 12 月 1 日)}

stash: make sure we have a valid index before writing it

^{Reported-by: Grzegorz Rajchman
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer}

In 'do_apply_stash()' we refresh the index in the end.

Since 34933d0eff ("stash: make sure to write refreshed cache", 2019-09-11, Git v2.24.0-rc0 -- merge listed in batch #6), we also write that refreshed index when --quiet is given to 'git stash apply'.

However if '--index' is not given to 'git stash apply', we also discard the index in the else clause just before.

We need to do so because we use an external 'git update-index --add --stdin', which leads to an out of date in-core index.

Later we call 'refresh_and_write_cache', which now leads to writing the discarded index, which means we essentially write an empty index file.

This is obviously not correct, or the behaviour the user wanted.

We should not modify the users index without being asked to do so.

Make sure to re-read the index after discarding the current in-core index, to avoid dealing with outdated information.

Instead we could also drop the 'discard_cache()' + 'read_cache()', however that would make it easy to fall into the same trap as 34933d0eff did, so it's better to avoid that.

We can also drop the 'refresh_and_write_cache' completely in the quiet case.

Previously in legacy stash we relied on 'git status' to refresh the index after calling 'git read-tree' when '--index' was passed to 'git apply'.

However the 'reset_tree()' call that replaced 'git read-tree' always passes options that are equivalent to '-m', making the refresh of the index unnecessary.

关于git - 在分支 checkout 之间保留 git --assume-unchanged 文件，我们在Stack Overflow上找到一个类似的问题： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9815416/