How do I copy a version of a single file from one Git branch to another?

Question

I've got two branches that are fully merged together.

However, after the merge is done, I realise that one file has been messed up by the merge (someone else did an auto-format, gah), and it would just be easier to change to the new version in the other branch, and then reinsert my one line change after bringing it over into my branch.

So what's the easiest way in Git to do this?

Please note that in the accepted answer, the first solution stages the changes, and the second solution doesn't. https://stackoverflow.com/a/56045704/151841 — user151841, May 08 '19 at 17:01
The most up-to-date answer is `git restore --source otherbranch path/to/myfile.txt` (see explanation in [the answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/60855504/1498178)). — toraritte, Jun 12 '21 at 00:29

score 2187 · Accepted Answer · edited Apr 09 '21 at 16:28

2187

Run this from the branch where you want the file to end up:

git checkout otherbranch myfile.txt

General formulas:

git checkout <commit_hash> <relative_path_to_file_or_dir>
git checkout <remote_name>/<branch_name> <file_or_dir>

Some notes (from comments):

Using the commit hash, you can pull files from any commit
This works for files and directories
Overwrites the file myfile.txt and mydir
Wildcards don't work, but relative paths do
Multiple paths can be specified

An alternative:

git show commit_id:path/to/file > path/to/file

edited Apr 09 '21 at 16:28

Peter Mortensen

30,738
21
105
131

answered Nov 21 '08 at 04:31

madlep

47,370
7
42
53

1

But wouldn't this overwrite all your changes in the master? – Martin Feb 02 '10 at 11:46
15

Yes, it would. But that was the intention of the question. – Ikke Feb 02 '10 at 11:54
47

Probably obvious, but you need to use the complete filename... Wildcards don't work! – Chris Hart Sep 05 '11 at 22:03
Is there such handy way to "copy" file from certain commit (not from a branch as shown in this answer)? – milushov Feb 17 '13 at 12:25
8

although.. it is also nice way: git show commit_id:path/to/file > path/to/file – milushov Feb 17 '13 at 12:29
@Chris Hart Wildcards don't work, but relative paths do. Complete filename not always necessary :) – Kenan Banks Aug 01 '13 at 18:10
18

remote: git checkout origin/otherbranch myfile.txt – Roman Rhrn Nesterov Oct 04 '13 at 11:25
@user1448031 by pull I assume you mean that the file exists in a remote branch? `git checkout / ` should work (`git checkout upstream/foo myfile.txt` should "pull" myfile.txt from a forked repo's source repo into your local on the current branch). – Jakob Jingleheimer Sep 02 '14 at 22:54
1

Is there a way to tell git not to stage the file(s) shown in this way? I just want it to update my working copy, not my index. – erikprice Nov 10 '14 at 15:05
For future sleep deprived people, don't forget the full path to file: `git checkout otherbranch path/to/myfile.txt` – jefflab Feb 06 '15 at 03:12
This solution works great for committed files, but is there a way to copy a working file to a new branch? The dilemma of course is that you're forced to commit or stash the file before you can switch branches. At times I find myself in the middle of coding something and see the benefit of putting the current working version of that file into a different branch. – Mark Salvatore Jun 24 '15 at 14:28
@jefflab, per a quick test with v2.3.3, specifying just the relative path is sufficient. Moreover, assuming the directory is the same, at minimum just the filename alone needs to be specified. – Asclepius Jul 09 '15 at 01:29
After executing checkout, do I have to explicitly unstage the `HEAD` so that I can re-add and commit to include to my own commit message? – Srini Apr 05 '16 at 17:43
12

Using wildcards does work, you just need to wrap them with `''` so they don't get interpreted by the shell. – Wiktor Czajkowski May 21 '18 at 15:06
This is great, but does not seem to work for deleted files. For example, suppose you have branches `a` and `b` with identical folders `foo/` (and identical folder content): If you delete a file from folder `foo/` on branch `a`, followed by `checkout a foo/` on branch `b` (which has the same file), no changes are applied: the file will remain in place on branch `b`. – djvg Oct 19 '18 at 07:25
If there are gaps between both branches, will this action create conflicts later on if you merge? – Ben Carp May 07 '19 at 12:28
The alternative is what I was looking for – Matt Rose Mar 08 '23 at 15:58

score 213 · Answer 2 · edited Nov 01 '22 at 01:44

213

I would use git restore (available since Git 2.23):

git restore --source otherbranch path/to/myfile.txt

Why is this better than other options?

by default git restore modifies files only in the working directory

git checkout otherbranch -- path/to/myfile.txt copies the file to the working directory (your files on disk) but also to the staging area. It has the same effect as if you copied the file manually and executed git add on it. git restore by default changes only the working directory.

To get the same result as for git checkout otherbranch -- path/to/myfile.txt you can write git restore --source otherbranch --staged --worktree path/to/myfile.txt

by default git restore deletes files from the working directory when they are absent in the other branch

git restore can be used to restore the whole folder with git restore --source otherbranch path/to/dir. You can do a similar operation with git checkout but git restore by default will delete files that are absent in otherbranch. To get git checkout behaviour use --overlay option.

For example, if there are fewer files on otherbranch than in the current working directory (and these files are tracked) without --overlay option git restore will delete them. But this is a good default behaviour because you most likely want the state of the directory to be "the same as otherbranch", not "the same as otherbranch but with additional files from my current branch".

To get the same result as for git checkout otherbranch -- path/to/dir you can write git restore --source otherbranch --staged --worktree --overlay path/to/dir

git restore doesn't use shell redirection to create file (Powershell only problem)

git show otherbranch:path/to/myfile.txt > path/to/myfile.txt uses standard shell redirection. If you use PowerShell then there might be problem with text encoding or could result in a corrupt file if it's binary. With git restore changing files is done all by the git executable.

edited Nov 01 '22 at 01:44

jarmod

71,565
16
115
122

answered Mar 25 '20 at 18:52

Mariusz Pawelski

25,983
11
67
80

1

Nice answer. Is there a `git restore` way to copy a file from the source branch to a _new_ file on the target branch? With git show I can do this with shell redirection (`git show otherbranch:path/to/file1.txt > path/to/file2.txt`), but I want to avoid shell redirection for the reasons you mentioned. – AdmiralAdama May 18 '20 at 16:13
2

@AdmiralAdama not really. And I think there is no big chance of getting it in `git restore` (but who know ;)). This redirection issues are basically Powershell problem, not sure if there is any other shell that have problem with it. I usually go back to "git bash" or even "cmd" where I need to use "`git show` with redirection" commands. Or use GUI like GitExtensions where you can browse file tree of commit and click "Save as" on any file. – Mariusz Pawelski May 18 '20 at 18:41
Ah I see. I don't use Powershell so perhaps shell redirection is np for me. Thanks for the info. – AdmiralAdama May 19 '20 at 16:30
1

Small improvement: better is `git restore --source=otherbranch path/to/myfile.txt` against `git restore --source otherbranch path/to/myfile.txt` the reason is because in the second case, `tab` to list the available branches doesn't work. – FabianoLothor Aug 30 '21 at 19:29
3

Thank you for your "post-`checkout`-era" response – Max Coplan Jan 22 '22 at 00:13
Which branch should I be located in to run the command ? The destination branch or the source branch ? I guess the source destination since there's a source option – cassepipe Jul 06 '23 at 11:23
FYI the docs say "THIS COMMAND IS EXPERIMENTAL. THE BEHAVIOR MAY CHANGE." – qwr Aug 09 '23 at 19:27
@qwr yep, but i wouldn't worry too much that it's going to be removed or be changed significantly. `git restore` is suggested when you do `git status`, `git checkout` was replaced in [git tutorials](https://git-scm.com/docs/gittutorial) to `git switch` (another "experimental" command). For me it's almost certain that `git restore` and `git switch` are here going to stay, I think git developers are too cautious with these warnings in documentation – Mariusz Pawelski Aug 09 '23 at 20:37

score 96 · Answer 3 · edited Dec 19 '20 at 02:04

96

I ended up at this question on a similar search. In my case I was looking to extract a file from another branch into current working directory that was different from the file's original location. Answer:

git show TREEISH:path/to/file > path/to/local/file

edited Dec 19 '20 at 02:04

Rob Bednark

25,981
23
80
125

answered Aug 17 '11 at 20:38

lkraav

2,696
3
26
26

23

The intention of 'git show' is to output data to the terminal in readable format, which is not guarantied to match the content of the file exactly. Same as it is better to copy a word-document as a whole, and not try to Copy-and-Paste its content to another document. – Gonen Aug 14 '14 at 07:46
I just wanted to view it so I could compare the contents against the current branch (check some piece of code). I'd like to use vim with this though... for syntax highlighting, etc. – isaaclw Oct 14 '14 at 17:32
3

To compare contents before doing the checkout, `git diff ` works well. – Randall Mar 11 '16 at 20:10
5

@Gonen: As of git version 2.21.0, the "git show" manual page says "For plain blobs, it shows the plain contents." I'm not sure if this means we're always good. I'm kinda wary to fetch an image that way... – hibbelig Apr 22 '19 at 14:42

score 56 · Answer 4 · edited Apr 09 '21 at 16:29

56

Use the checkout command:

  git diff --stat "$branch"
  git checkout --merge "$branch" "$file"
  git diff --stat "$branch"

edited Apr 09 '21 at 16:29

Peter Mortensen

30,738
21
105
131

answered Mar 06 '10 at 14:30

RzR

3,068
29
26

8

note merge (2nd command) cannot work if the file does not exist on both branches – simpleuser May 23 '14 at 18:18
Hm. I don't have diffstat. Is that a specific version of a diff tool, because I've never heard of it (and should I switch to it?) :D – dudewad Jun 19 '15 at 20:32
`git diff` supports an `--stat` argument which basically does the same thing as diffstat. – hlovdal Jul 01 '16 at 08:33
I had to have both branches checked out locally to get this to work. – UnitasBrooks Mar 21 '17 at 23:10

score 35 · Answer 5 · edited Apr 09 '21 at 16:33

35

Ensure you're in branch where you need a copy of the file.

For example: I want sub branch file in master, so you need to checkout or should be in master git checkout master
Now check out the specific file alone you want from the sub branch into master,
```
 git checkout sub_branch file_path/my_file.ext
```
Here sub_branch means where you have that file followed by filename you need to copy.

edited Apr 09 '21 at 16:33

Peter Mortensen

30,738
21
105
131

answered Jun 29 '17 at 08:47

Mohideen bin Mohammed

18,813
10
112
118

Very handy and well explained. – Abk Sep 09 '19 at 11:45

score 23 · Answer 6 · edited Apr 09 '21 at 16:32

23

Following madlep's answer, you can also just copy one directory from another branch with the directory blob.

git checkout other-branch app/**

As to the OP's question if you've only changed one file in there, this will work fine.

edited Apr 09 '21 at 16:32

Peter Mortensen

30,738
21
105
131

answered Jun 06 '15 at 21:29

6ft Dan

2,365
1
33
46

1

Notice that both the branches need to be properly pulled, first, or use `origin/other-branch` for referring to the repo branch. Basics, but bit me. (the answer is great - no editing required) – akauppi Jul 22 '15 at 07:35

score 6 · Answer 7 · answered May 08 '19 at 17:00

Please note that in the accepted answer, the first option stages the entire file from the other branch (like git add ... had been performed), and that the second option just results in copying the file, but doesn't stage the changes (as if you had just edited the file manually and had outstanding differences).

Git copy file from another branch without staging it

Changes staged (e.g. git add filename):

$ git checkout directory/somefile.php feature-B

$ git status
On branch feature-A
Your branch is up-to-date with 'origin/feature-A'.
Changes to be committed:
  (use "git reset HEAD <file>..." to unstage)

        modified:   directory/somefile.php

Changes outstanding (not staged or committed):

$ git show feature-B:directory/somefile.php > directory/somefile.php

$ git status
On branch feature-A
Your branch is up-to-date with 'origin/feature-A'.
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:   directory/somefile.php

no changes added to commit (use "git add" and/or "git commit -a")

I get "feature-B is not a file", the branch name comes first, about this -> "> directory/somefile.php" may this change the encoding of the file ? — Tiago Oliveira de Freitas, Jan 29 '20 at 12:33

score 5 · Answer 8 · answered Apr 13 '22 at 14:25

Sorry, no one mentioned that before restoring a file you really want to preview local changes in relation to that branch, so:

git diff <other-branch-name> -- <filename>

Then when you're accepting a lost (overwritting), you can follow by:

git restore --source <other-branch-name> <filename>
or
git checkout <other-branch-name> <filename>

How do I copy a version of a single file from one Git branch to another?

8 Answers8

Linked

Related