Disable Git Rename Detection
- I have a file,
foo.txt
- Create and checkout branch 'branch_A'
git mv foo.txt bar.txtfollowed bygit add -Athengit commit -m "renamed foo.txt"
- Checkout master,
git checkout master
- remove foo.txt and commit.
- Now merge branch_A,
git merge branch_A
And with this, I get an merge conflict (rename/delete).
CONFLICT (rename/delete): Rename foo.txt->bar.txt in branch_A and deleted in HEAD
This makes sense and is what I'd expect. However, I'd like to know if there is a way for git merge to not detect renames, but instead treat them as added/deleted. In this case, I'd expect git to detect that foo.txt was deleted and simply add bar.txt. No conflict.
I've tried using -X rename-threshold, but it has not worked for me. I've tried thresholds 0 and 120 (a number above 100). What am I missing?
Thanks!
P.S. I'm also getting error: refusing to lose untracked file at... errors. What does this mean?
git merge rename
asked May 16 '11 at 4:47
Ken HirakawaKen Hirakawa
2,88183246
add a comment |
- I have a file,
foo.txt
- Create and checkout branch 'branch_A'
git mv foo.txt bar.txtfollowed bygit add -Athengit commit -m "renamed foo.txt"
- Checkout master,
git checkout master
- remove foo.txt and commit.
- Now merge branch_A,
git merge branch_A
And with this, I get an merge conflict (rename/delete).
CONFLICT (rename/delete): Rename foo.txt->bar.txt in branch_A and deleted in HEAD
This makes sense and is what I'd expect. However, I'd like to know if there is a way for git merge to not detect renames, but instead treat them as added/deleted. In this case, I'd expect git to detect that foo.txt was deleted and simply add bar.txt. No conflict.
I've tried using -X rename-threshold, but it has not worked for me. I've tried thresholds 0 and 120 (a number above 100). What am I missing?
Thanks!
P.S. I'm also getting error: refusing to lose untracked file at... errors. What does this mean?
git merge rename
asked May 16 '11 at 4:47
Ken HirakawaKen Hirakawa
2,88183246
1
error: refusing to lose untracked file at...could be the result of mergingbar.txt, which was tracked inbranch_Abut untracked inmaster, assuming that it exists in your working directory
– Chris Frederick
May 16 '11 at 4:57
1
With git 2.8 (March 2016), you will have the option of doing agit merge --no-renames. See my answer below
– VonC
Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
1
With Git 2.18 (Q2 2018), you have the option ofgit config merge.renames false. See my updated answer below.
– VonC
Jun 3 '18 at 21:31
add a comment |
- I have a file,
foo.txt
- Create and checkout branch 'branch_A'
git mv foo.txt bar.txtfollowed bygit add -Athengit commit -m "renamed foo.txt"
- Checkout master,
git checkout master
- remove foo.txt and commit.
- Now merge branch_A,
git merge branch_A
And with this, I get an merge conflict (rename/delete).
CONFLICT (rename/delete): Rename foo.txt->bar.txt in branch_A and deleted in HEAD
This makes sense and is what I'd expect. However, I'd like to know if there is a way for git merge to not detect renames, but instead treat them as added/deleted. In this case, I'd expect git to detect that foo.txt was deleted and simply add bar.txt. No conflict.
I've tried using -X rename-threshold, but it has not worked for me. I've tried thresholds 0 and 120 (a number above 100). What am I missing?
Thanks!
P.S. I'm also getting error: refusing to lose untracked file at... errors. What does this mean?
git merge rename
asked May 16 '11 at 4:47
Ken HirakawaKen Hirakawa
2,88183246
- I have a file,
foo.txt
- Create and checkout branch 'branch_A'
git mv foo.txt bar.txtfollowed bygit add -Athengit commit -m "renamed foo.txt"
- Checkout master,
git checkout master
- remove foo.txt and commit.
- Now merge branch_A,
git merge branch_A
And with this, I get an merge conflict (rename/delete).
CONFLICT (rename/delete): Rename foo.txt->bar.txt in branch_A and deleted in HEAD
This makes sense and is what I'd expect. However, I'd like to know if there is a way for git merge to not detect renames, but instead treat them as added/deleted. In this case, I'd expect git to detect that foo.txt was deleted and simply add bar.txt. No conflict.
I've tried using -X rename-threshold, but it has not worked for me. I've tried thresholds 0 and 120 (a number above 100). What am I missing?
Thanks!
P.S. I'm also getting error: refusing to lose untracked file at... errors. What does this mean?
git merge rename
git merge rename
asked May 16 '11 at 4:47
Ken HirakawaKen Hirakawa
2,88183246
asked May 16 '11 at 4:47
Ken HirakawaKen Hirakawa
2,88183246
asked May 16 '11 at 4:47
Ken HirakawaKen Hirakawa
2,88183246
asked May 16 '11 at 4:47
Ken HirakawaKen Hirakawa
2,88183246
asked May 16 '11 at 4:47
Ken HirakawaKen Hirakawa
2,88183246
2,88183246
1
error: refusing to lose untracked file at...could be the result of mergingbar.txt, which was tracked inbranch_Abut untracked inmaster, assuming that it exists in your working directory
– Chris Frederick
May 16 '11 at 4:57
1
With git 2.8 (March 2016), you will have the option of doing agit merge --no-renames. See my answer below
– VonC
Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
1
With Git 2.18 (Q2 2018), you have the option ofgit config merge.renames false. See my updated answer below.
– VonC
Jun 3 '18 at 21:31
add a comment |
1
error: refusing to lose untracked file at...could be the result of mergingbar.txt, which was tracked inbranch_Abut untracked inmaster, assuming that it exists in your working directory
– Chris Frederick
May 16 '11 at 4:57
1
With git 2.8 (March 2016), you will have the option of doing agit merge --no-renames. See my answer below
– VonC
Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
1
With Git 2.18 (Q2 2018), you have the option ofgit config merge.renames false. See my updated answer below.
– VonC
Jun 3 '18 at 21:31
1
1
error: refusing to lose untracked file at... could be the result of merging bar.txt, which was tracked in branch_A but untracked in master, assuming that it exists in your working directory– Chris Frederick
May 16 '11 at 4:57
error: refusing to lose untracked file at... could be the result of merging bar.txt, which was tracked in branch_A but untracked in master, assuming that it exists in your working directory– Chris Frederick
May 16 '11 at 4:57
1
1
With git 2.8 (March 2016), you will have the option of doing a
git merge --no-renames. See my answer below– VonC
Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
With git 2.8 (March 2016), you will have the option of doing a
git merge --no-renames. See my answer below– VonC
Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
1
1
With Git 2.18 (Q2 2018), you have the option of
git config merge.renames false. See my updated answer below.– VonC
Jun 3 '18 at 21:31
With Git 2.18 (Q2 2018), you have the option of
git config merge.renames false. See my updated answer below.– VonC
Jun 3 '18 at 21:31
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Can you try with:
git merge -s resolve branch_A
Also, have you tried looking at similar questions here:
git rename/delete confusion
git divergent renaming
edited May 23 '17 at 12:18
Community♦
11
answered May 16 '11 at 5:27
manojldsmanojlds
217k46379366
2
This really needs more explanation
– Liam
Nov 21 '18 at 16:40
Basically I hadfile.txtthat I had modified and move to thefoosubdirectory, and then backtracked in history and used the samefile.txtas a starting point to modify it and move it to abardirectory. Then I tried to merge the two branches, wanting to wind up with separatefooandbarversions of the file with a history going back to the same source. Using-s resolveas @manojlds indicated worked beautifully, but as Liam mentioned, it really does need more explanation. But thanks so much manojlds for the answer.
– Garret Wilson
2 days ago
add a comment |
With git 2.8 (March 2016), you will have another option (as an option to the recursive merge strategy)
git merge -Srecursive -Xno-renames
See commit 44c74ec, commit 2307211, commit 63651e1 (24 Feb 2016), commit 2307211, commit 63651e1 (24 Feb 2016), commit 87892f6, commit 83837ec (21 Feb 2016), and commit 1b47ad1, commit d2b11ec (17 Feb 2016) by Felipe Gonçalves Assis (asiz).
(Merged by Junio C Hamano -- gitster -- in commit 4ce064d, 26 Feb 2016)
merge-recursive: option to disable renames
The recursive strategy turns on rename detection by default.
Add a strategy option to disable rename detection even for exact renames.
The man git-merge will include:
no-renames
Turn off rename detection.
Seegit diff --no-rename.
(Note, as seen in commit 1b47ad1, the find-renames merge strategy, following git diff interface, makes the option rename-threshold redundant starting with git 2.8)
You have an additional setting with Git 2.18 (Q2 2018): with the merge.renames configuration set to false, the recursive merge strategy can be told not to spend cycles trying to find renamed paths and merge them accordingly.
See commit 6f10a09, commit 85b4603, commit a7152e9 (02 May 2018) by Ben Peart (benpeart).
(Merged by Junio C Hamano -- gitster -- in commit 6e2ba77, 30 May 2018)
merge: addmerge.renamesconfig setting
Add the ability to control rename detection for merge via a config setting.
This setting behaves the same and defaults to the value ofdiff.renamesbut only applies to merge.
answered Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
VonCVonC
849k30027033258
was this removed in 2.9? The git maintainers ppa of stable releases does not have this flag AFAICT.
– ThorSummoner
Jun 24 '16 at 22:10
1
@ThorSummoner I agree. It is actually an option to a merge strategy. I have edited the answer.
– VonC
Jun 24 '16 at 22:23
@VonC: may I offer 2 tiny edits: add hyphen in git-merge; drop double-hyphen before no-renames. Should say: "The man git-merge will include: no-renames"
– chrisinmtown
May 10 '17 at 12:59
@chrisinmtown Thank you. I have edited the answer accordingly.
– VonC
May 10 '17 at 13:36
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f6013261%2fdisable-git-rename-detection%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Can you try with:
git merge -s resolve branch_A
Also, have you tried looking at similar questions here:
git rename/delete confusion
git divergent renaming
edited May 23 '17 at 12:18
Community♦
11
answered May 16 '11 at 5:27
manojldsmanojlds
217k46379366
2
This really needs more explanation
– Liam
Nov 21 '18 at 16:40
Basically I hadfile.txtthat I had modified and move to thefoosubdirectory, and then backtracked in history and used the samefile.txtas a starting point to modify it and move it to abardirectory. Then I tried to merge the two branches, wanting to wind up with separatefooandbarversions of the file with a history going back to the same source. Using-s resolveas @manojlds indicated worked beautifully, but as Liam mentioned, it really does need more explanation. But thanks so much manojlds for the answer.
– Garret Wilson
2 days ago
add a comment |
Can you try with:
git merge -s resolve branch_A
Also, have you tried looking at similar questions here:
git rename/delete confusion
git divergent renaming
edited May 23 '17 at 12:18
Community♦
11
answered May 16 '11 at 5:27
manojldsmanojlds
217k46379366
2
This really needs more explanation
– Liam
Nov 21 '18 at 16:40
Basically I hadfile.txtthat I had modified and move to thefoosubdirectory, and then backtracked in history and used the samefile.txtas a starting point to modify it and move it to abardirectory. Then I tried to merge the two branches, wanting to wind up with separatefooandbarversions of the file with a history going back to the same source. Using-s resolveas @manojlds indicated worked beautifully, but as Liam mentioned, it really does need more explanation. But thanks so much manojlds for the answer.
– Garret Wilson
2 days ago
add a comment |
Can you try with:
git merge -s resolve branch_A
Also, have you tried looking at similar questions here:
git rename/delete confusion
git divergent renaming
edited May 23 '17 at 12:18
Community♦
11
answered May 16 '11 at 5:27
manojldsmanojlds
217k46379366
Can you try with:
git merge -s resolve branch_A
Also, have you tried looking at similar questions here:
git rename/delete confusion
git divergent renaming
edited May 23 '17 at 12:18
Community♦
11
answered May 16 '11 at 5:27
manojldsmanojlds
217k46379366
edited May 23 '17 at 12:18
Community♦
11
edited May 23 '17 at 12:18
Community♦
11
edited May 23 '17 at 12:18
Community♦
11
11
answered May 16 '11 at 5:27
manojldsmanojlds
217k46379366
answered May 16 '11 at 5:27
manojldsmanojlds
217k46379366
answered May 16 '11 at 5:27
manojldsmanojlds
217k46379366
217k46379366
2
This really needs more explanation
– Liam
Nov 21 '18 at 16:40
Basically I hadfile.txtthat I had modified and move to thefoosubdirectory, and then backtracked in history and used the samefile.txtas a starting point to modify it and move it to abardirectory. Then I tried to merge the two branches, wanting to wind up with separatefooandbarversions of the file with a history going back to the same source. Using-s resolveas @manojlds indicated worked beautifully, but as Liam mentioned, it really does need more explanation. But thanks so much manojlds for the answer.
– Garret Wilson
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
This really needs more explanation
– Liam
Nov 21 '18 at 16:40
Basically I hadfile.txtthat I had modified and move to thefoosubdirectory, and then backtracked in history and used the samefile.txtas a starting point to modify it and move it to abardirectory. Then I tried to merge the two branches, wanting to wind up with separatefooandbarversions of the file with a history going back to the same source. Using-s resolveas @manojlds indicated worked beautifully, but as Liam mentioned, it really does need more explanation. But thanks so much manojlds for the answer.
– Garret Wilson
2 days ago
2
2
This really needs more explanation
– Liam
Nov 21 '18 at 16:40
This really needs more explanation
– Liam
Nov 21 '18 at 16:40
Basically I had
file.txt that I had modified and move to the foo subdirectory, and then backtracked in history and used the same file.txt as a starting point to modify it and move it to a bar directory. Then I tried to merge the two branches, wanting to wind up with separate foo and bar versions of the file with a history going back to the same source. Using -s resolve as @manojlds indicated worked beautifully, but as Liam mentioned, it really does need more explanation. But thanks so much manojlds for the answer.– Garret Wilson
2 days ago
Basically I had
file.txt that I had modified and move to the foo subdirectory, and then backtracked in history and used the same file.txt as a starting point to modify it and move it to a bar directory. Then I tried to merge the two branches, wanting to wind up with separate foo and bar versions of the file with a history going back to the same source. Using -s resolve as @manojlds indicated worked beautifully, but as Liam mentioned, it really does need more explanation. But thanks so much manojlds for the answer.– Garret Wilson
2 days ago
add a comment |
With git 2.8 (March 2016), you will have another option (as an option to the recursive merge strategy)
git merge -Srecursive -Xno-renames
See commit 44c74ec, commit 2307211, commit 63651e1 (24 Feb 2016), commit 2307211, commit 63651e1 (24 Feb 2016), commit 87892f6, commit 83837ec (21 Feb 2016), and commit 1b47ad1, commit d2b11ec (17 Feb 2016) by Felipe Gonçalves Assis (asiz).
(Merged by Junio C Hamano -- gitster -- in commit 4ce064d, 26 Feb 2016)
merge-recursive: option to disable renames
The recursive strategy turns on rename detection by default.
Add a strategy option to disable rename detection even for exact renames.
The man git-merge will include:
no-renames
Turn off rename detection.
Seegit diff --no-rename.
(Note, as seen in commit 1b47ad1, the find-renames merge strategy, following git diff interface, makes the option rename-threshold redundant starting with git 2.8)
You have an additional setting with Git 2.18 (Q2 2018): with the merge.renames configuration set to false, the recursive merge strategy can be told not to spend cycles trying to find renamed paths and merge them accordingly.
See commit 6f10a09, commit 85b4603, commit a7152e9 (02 May 2018) by Ben Peart (benpeart).
(Merged by Junio C Hamano -- gitster -- in commit 6e2ba77, 30 May 2018)
merge: addmerge.renamesconfig setting
Add the ability to control rename detection for merge via a config setting.
This setting behaves the same and defaults to the value ofdiff.renamesbut only applies to merge.
answered Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
VonCVonC
849k30027033258
was this removed in 2.9? The git maintainers ppa of stable releases does not have this flag AFAICT.
– ThorSummoner
Jun 24 '16 at 22:10
1
@ThorSummoner I agree. It is actually an option to a merge strategy. I have edited the answer.
– VonC
Jun 24 '16 at 22:23
@VonC: may I offer 2 tiny edits: add hyphen in git-merge; drop double-hyphen before no-renames. Should say: "The man git-merge will include: no-renames"
– chrisinmtown
May 10 '17 at 12:59
@chrisinmtown Thank you. I have edited the answer accordingly.
– VonC
May 10 '17 at 13:36
add a comment |
With git 2.8 (March 2016), you will have another option (as an option to the recursive merge strategy)
git merge -Srecursive -Xno-renames
See commit 44c74ec, commit 2307211, commit 63651e1 (24 Feb 2016), commit 2307211, commit 63651e1 (24 Feb 2016), commit 87892f6, commit 83837ec (21 Feb 2016), and commit 1b47ad1, commit d2b11ec (17 Feb 2016) by Felipe Gonçalves Assis (asiz).
(Merged by Junio C Hamano -- gitster -- in commit 4ce064d, 26 Feb 2016)
merge-recursive: option to disable renames
The recursive strategy turns on rename detection by default.
Add a strategy option to disable rename detection even for exact renames.
The man git-merge will include:
no-renames
Turn off rename detection.
Seegit diff --no-rename.
(Note, as seen in commit 1b47ad1, the find-renames merge strategy, following git diff interface, makes the option rename-threshold redundant starting with git 2.8)
You have an additional setting with Git 2.18 (Q2 2018): with the merge.renames configuration set to false, the recursive merge strategy can be told not to spend cycles trying to find renamed paths and merge them accordingly.
See commit 6f10a09, commit 85b4603, commit a7152e9 (02 May 2018) by Ben Peart (benpeart).
(Merged by Junio C Hamano -- gitster -- in commit 6e2ba77, 30 May 2018)
merge: addmerge.renamesconfig setting
Add the ability to control rename detection for merge via a config setting.
This setting behaves the same and defaults to the value ofdiff.renamesbut only applies to merge.
answered Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
VonCVonC
849k30027033258
was this removed in 2.9? The git maintainers ppa of stable releases does not have this flag AFAICT.
– ThorSummoner
Jun 24 '16 at 22:10
1
@ThorSummoner I agree. It is actually an option to a merge strategy. I have edited the answer.
– VonC
Jun 24 '16 at 22:23
@VonC: may I offer 2 tiny edits: add hyphen in git-merge; drop double-hyphen before no-renames. Should say: "The man git-merge will include: no-renames"
– chrisinmtown
May 10 '17 at 12:59
@chrisinmtown Thank you. I have edited the answer accordingly.
– VonC
May 10 '17 at 13:36
add a comment |
With git 2.8 (March 2016), you will have another option (as an option to the recursive merge strategy)
git merge -Srecursive -Xno-renames
See commit 44c74ec, commit 2307211, commit 63651e1 (24 Feb 2016), commit 2307211, commit 63651e1 (24 Feb 2016), commit 87892f6, commit 83837ec (21 Feb 2016), and commit 1b47ad1, commit d2b11ec (17 Feb 2016) by Felipe Gonçalves Assis (asiz).
(Merged by Junio C Hamano -- gitster -- in commit 4ce064d, 26 Feb 2016)
merge-recursive: option to disable renames
The recursive strategy turns on rename detection by default.
Add a strategy option to disable rename detection even for exact renames.
The man git-merge will include:
no-renames
Turn off rename detection.
Seegit diff --no-rename.
(Note, as seen in commit 1b47ad1, the find-renames merge strategy, following git diff interface, makes the option rename-threshold redundant starting with git 2.8)
You have an additional setting with Git 2.18 (Q2 2018): with the merge.renames configuration set to false, the recursive merge strategy can be told not to spend cycles trying to find renamed paths and merge them accordingly.
See commit 6f10a09, commit 85b4603, commit a7152e9 (02 May 2018) by Ben Peart (benpeart).
(Merged by Junio C Hamano -- gitster -- in commit 6e2ba77, 30 May 2018)
merge: addmerge.renamesconfig setting
Add the ability to control rename detection for merge via a config setting.
This setting behaves the same and defaults to the value ofdiff.renamesbut only applies to merge.
answered Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
VonCVonC
849k30027033258
With git 2.8 (March 2016), you will have another option (as an option to the recursive merge strategy)
git merge -Srecursive -Xno-renames
See commit 44c74ec, commit 2307211, commit 63651e1 (24 Feb 2016), commit 2307211, commit 63651e1 (24 Feb 2016), commit 87892f6, commit 83837ec (21 Feb 2016), and commit 1b47ad1, commit d2b11ec (17 Feb 2016) by Felipe Gonçalves Assis (asiz).
(Merged by Junio C Hamano -- gitster -- in commit 4ce064d, 26 Feb 2016)
merge-recursive: option to disable renames
The recursive strategy turns on rename detection by default.
Add a strategy option to disable rename detection even for exact renames.
The man git-merge will include:
no-renames
Turn off rename detection.
Seegit diff --no-rename.
(Note, as seen in commit 1b47ad1, the find-renames merge strategy, following git diff interface, makes the option rename-threshold redundant starting with git 2.8)
You have an additional setting with Git 2.18 (Q2 2018): with the merge.renames configuration set to false, the recursive merge strategy can be told not to spend cycles trying to find renamed paths and merge them accordingly.
See commit 6f10a09, commit 85b4603, commit a7152e9 (02 May 2018) by Ben Peart (benpeart).
(Merged by Junio C Hamano -- gitster -- in commit 6e2ba77, 30 May 2018)
merge: addmerge.renamesconfig setting
Add the ability to control rename detection for merge via a config setting.
This setting behaves the same and defaults to the value ofdiff.renamesbut only applies to merge.
answered Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
VonCVonC
849k30027033258
edited Jun 3 '18 at 21:30
answered Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
VonCVonC
849k30027033258
answered Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
VonCVonC
849k30027033258
answered Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
VonCVonC
849k30027033258
849k30027033258
was this removed in 2.9? The git maintainers ppa of stable releases does not have this flag AFAICT.
– ThorSummoner
Jun 24 '16 at 22:10
1
@ThorSummoner I agree. It is actually an option to a merge strategy. I have edited the answer.
– VonC
Jun 24 '16 at 22:23
@VonC: may I offer 2 tiny edits: add hyphen in git-merge; drop double-hyphen before no-renames. Should say: "The man git-merge will include: no-renames"
– chrisinmtown
May 10 '17 at 12:59
@chrisinmtown Thank you. I have edited the answer accordingly.
– VonC
May 10 '17 at 13:36
add a comment |
was this removed in 2.9? The git maintainers ppa of stable releases does not have this flag AFAICT.
– ThorSummoner
Jun 24 '16 at 22:10
1
@ThorSummoner I agree. It is actually an option to a merge strategy. I have edited the answer.
– VonC
Jun 24 '16 at 22:23
@VonC: may I offer 2 tiny edits: add hyphen in git-merge; drop double-hyphen before no-renames. Should say: "The man git-merge will include: no-renames"
– chrisinmtown
May 10 '17 at 12:59
@chrisinmtown Thank you. I have edited the answer accordingly.
– VonC
May 10 '17 at 13:36
was this removed in 2.9? The git maintainers ppa of stable releases does not have this flag AFAICT.
– ThorSummoner
Jun 24 '16 at 22:10
was this removed in 2.9? The git maintainers ppa of stable releases does not have this flag AFAICT.
– ThorSummoner
Jun 24 '16 at 22:10
1
1
@ThorSummoner I agree. It is actually an option to a merge strategy. I have edited the answer.
– VonC
Jun 24 '16 at 22:23
@ThorSummoner I agree. It is actually an option to a merge strategy. I have edited the answer.
– VonC
Jun 24 '16 at 22:23
@VonC: may I offer 2 tiny edits: add hyphen in git-merge; drop double-hyphen before no-renames. Should say: "The man git-merge will include: no-renames"
– chrisinmtown
May 10 '17 at 12:59
@VonC: may I offer 2 tiny edits: add hyphen in git-merge; drop double-hyphen before no-renames. Should say: "The man git-merge will include: no-renames"
– chrisinmtown
May 10 '17 at 12:59
@chrisinmtown Thank you. I have edited the answer accordingly.
– VonC
May 10 '17 at 13:36
@chrisinmtown Thank you. I have edited the answer accordingly.
– VonC
May 10 '17 at 13:36
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f6013261%2fdisable-git-rename-detection%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
error: refusing to lose untracked file at...could be the result of mergingbar.txt, which was tracked inbranch_Abut untracked inmaster, assuming that it exists in your working directory– Chris Frederick
May 16 '11 at 4:57
1
With git 2.8 (March 2016), you will have the option of doing a
git merge --no-renames. See my answer below– VonC
Feb 27 '16 at 16:59
1
With Git 2.18 (Q2 2018), you have the option of
git config merge.renames false. See my updated answer below.– VonC
Jun 3 '18 at 21:31