10

I had used the command git checkout -- $(git ls-files -m) to undo a git rm on some files. However, I had modified some other files without committing them, and these files have been reverted to their previous commit, losing the uncommitted changes.

Is there a way to get these changes back?
I imagine not with git as the changes weren't added to git. On a Mac if that helps.

Thanks Tom

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    Check git reflog. Might be helpful in your situation. It's like a list of restore points you can reset to. git-scm.com/docs/git-reflog Commented Apr 9, 2014 at 10:24
  • 2
    If you did a git add of the modified contents, those are now stored in the repository and will show up as "dangling blob"s (use git fsck --lost-found to get file contents, but the names are gone). If not ... well, if Time Machine backed them up you might be able to get them from there. Otherwise they are probably gone. Commented Apr 9, 2014 at 10:34
  • 1
    I didn't git add and time machine doesn't have the changes :( Commented Apr 10, 2014 at 10:38
  • 1
    This question could/should be generalized to "Does git checkout really silently overwrite uncommitted changes?" And the answer is still "yes" in 2018 (just tested with 2.11)... A mere accidental/forgetful git checkout . and good bye pending work, in EACH file! :-o No warning, not a word. As if that could be the happiest possible result. (And the internet seems complicitly silent about this, just see how your question got zero answers. :) Or, worse: I've even seen reasoning for it, equivalent to saying format c: or rm -r should not ask, as you deliberately issued the command... :) ) Commented Mar 20, 2018 at 14:19

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

"Does git checkout really silently overwrite uncommitted changes?"
And the answer is still "yes" in 2018 (just tested with 2.11)

It is true in August 2019, with Git 2.23, except there is now a more explicit git restore command

A simple git restore . would also restore the working tree silently, from the index content (so if the files were modified but not added to said index, their changes would still be lost)

But at least there is no confusion possible between checkout of files and of branch.

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

5 Comments

I don't suppose there's any use my asking a Stack Overflow question like "why does git checkout myfile overwrite changes to myfile without warning?" I'd just be whining about something we all know, wouldn't I?
@matt Eventually, git checkout will be retired (obsolete). Only git switch and git restore will remain.
And does git restore behave better? My git is too old to test.
@matt That is what I describe in stackoverflow.com/a/57066072/6309: it can still override a file content, but it is explicit: you want to restore the content of a file.
Cool, thx. My gut feeling is that this is still wrong: just as you couldn't switch branches if your uncommitted changes would be clobbered, you shouldn't be able to restore to another commit's version without at least being warned if that would wipe out your uncommitted / unadded changes. But maybe I just expect too much hand-holding. :)
2

By default you can't get it back, but you may be lucky in such an emergency situation and be able to retrieve a file that you accidentally clobbered by git checkout filename in the following ways:

  • You may still have the file buffered in a text editor (for me I have found in my BBEdit text editor that, if I had it open, I can do an
    undo to get the file back (because it tends to be loaded to the
    current version if the file on disk is changed), and then save.
  • Also if you have continuous backup running you might also be able to get back a version you edited. For example Apple Time Machine might
    have a version from only a short while ago.
Improve this answer

Comments

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.