top button
Flag Notify
    Connect to us
      Site Registration

Site Registration

Getting list of files in GIT that were changed

+2 votes

Suppose I create a new local branch and name it "mybranch" and made some changes in some files. I commit the changes, checked out to master branch, merged "mybranch" with master branch and pushed the changes to master.

I checked out back to "mybranch", now is there anyway to get the list of files in which I made the changes?

posted Jul 31, 2013 by Mandeep Sehgal

Looking for an answer?  Promote on:
Facebook Share Button Twitter Share Button LinkedIn Share Button

Similar Questions
0 votes

I work on some files and push/merge them to the remote server. Sometimes I get merge conflicts on those files and have to fix them. That's completely fine. I get that.

What I don't understand is that sometimes during this process I will get merge conflicts in files _I have never touched_. In fact they are in a completely different series of directories to the one I am working on and someone else project entirely. How am I meant to know how to fix these? I dont know what the other developer wanted to do and if they have done it right.

I thought git only merged/pushed the files you have changed? If someone else has changed Group A files on the remote repo, why must I change my local Group A files when I am _pushing _completely different set of Group B files?

Sure, Id understand if I were pulling files down to my local and had to resolve merge conflicts then, but this isn't happening when I push the files up.

Any help or advice is much appreciated. Sorry if I sound frustrated - I am really trying hard to get my head round this whole git thing but its just so weird.

+1 vote

Running on Windows with latest version of Git. 1.9.4. Also had this trouble with 1.8.2 but upgraded hoping it would fix the problem.

When I do a reset on several files, it says they were successfully reverted they still show up as modified when I do a git status. In this case it's just a newline character at the end of the file. I also tried a reset -- hard and they files still show up! What the heck! Help please.

In trying to reproduce this, I re-cloned the git repo from the server, which was in the exact clean state before I started last time. No files have been modified after cloning, all are identical. Then, I created a new branch (totally new, not tracking a remote branch). Viola - I now have these files show up in my git status as modified. Please note that these are files that have been tracked for several previous commits.

Just to clarify - the only command I ran to make this happen is: git checkout -b newbranch

And GitGui shows the files as identical even when compare whitespace is turned on.

+2 votes

When does git shows message "nothing added to commit but untracked files present " ?

+1 vote

We are considering adopting git. We are currently using Vault from SourceGear.

One of the issues with our source code is that there is one file that is critical to our development. If its changed in our working directory then the entire solution needs to be re-built. We currently avoid this and usually end up needing to do it every couple of days or so, unless we are the developer making the changes to the critical file. We can avoid it in Vault by simply not updating the working directory with the new version.

We would use a Central Repository workflow as described here: We would probably end up using the Gitflow Workflow model. Gitflow is very similar to how we work with Vault.

With git, it seems that if we want to commit to the Central Repository we need to pull any changes from the branch we are pushing too. If the critical file has been changed in that branch then we must receive it in order to push our changes to that branch. We can of course push the changes then, but our local working directory will need to be re-compiled.

Does anyone have experience with handling a critical file like this?

Does it require that our commits to the central repository only take place when we are prepared to re-compile? This is a negative for Developer adoption of git.

If a developer must receive the critical file change, what would you say to a developer that makes him think its worth adopting git even though it has this major drawback?

+1 vote

I wanted to avoid push if any of the files is deleted from the local git clone area. Can anyone please help me with that?

I am using Stash for repository management.