Re: Any way to ignore a change to a tracked file when committing/merging?

Because git-commit -a is nice to use, especially if I really want to  
check in all the files, *except a particular set that is always the  
same*. Having to specify the files every time gets old pretty quick.

If I could do this:

$ git-commit -a --exclude=somefile

that would be very useful. Or even, if I could set a file in my .git  
folder that would be an exclude list, then I could run something like

$ git-commit -a --use-excludes

I suppose the answer is to create the patch myself. Seems like this  
would also be a useful feature for git-status, git-ls-files (when  
used with --modified), and probably some others that I haven't  
thought of yet.

-Dave Watson

On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, David Watson wrote:

quoted

I've got a problem, or maybe annoyance is more the proper term,  
that I haven't
seen solved by any SCM system (at least not to my knowledge).  
Basically, I may
make some changes, e.g. to a Makefile or somesuch, that I want to  
ignore when
looking at what's changed from the repository. The only problem  
is, the file
I've modified is already under version control, so .gitignore  
doesn't do
anything.

Now, I can commit it, so it will stop bugging me, but then when I  
push out it
will include that change, unless I back it out. This is a change  
that I don't
want propagated anywhere else, because it's specific to my machine or
development sandbox.

Is there any way to do this? I'd really love to use git-commit -a  
in this
situation, and I could hack up a script to undo my change, run git- 
commit -a,
and reapply the change, but makes me a bit squirmy. If I could put  
something
in a .git config file to say "commit 237ab should not be  
propagated under any
circumstances", that would be fantastic.

Why don't you just use git-commit _without_ -a ?

The whole purpose behind not specifying -a with git-commit is exactly
for your usage example.


Nicolas