> Suppose, I have a repository with history on master.
> Now I create a new branch "new" from nothing that includes all the same 
> files as master, but no history. Just as if i created all the files now 
> from scratch.
> master and new have no common history, right.

or maybe this: what if I create an empty commit and rebase (or graft or 
whatever) master onto this empty commit.
And the start my branch "new" from the same empty commit, put in all the 
files from master.

Now they do share a common history. Even if it's only a silly empty folder 
that existed before time ;-)
>From that common point, master made 10 years of incremental stuff, and new 
did the same in one big step. As far as I know, it should now be possible 
to merge new into master and git should be smart enough to see that the 
result is the same, so: no conflict. right?

After that, I could continue to merge changes made in new into master. And 
cherry-pick changes made in master into new, if I want.

If that works, and I feel it should, then the remaining question would be: 
why can't git just pretend that every random two branches share the same 
common "nothing" that existed before the first commit?

... and of course the problem with my submodule in one branch that is 
expanded into files in the other branch ... ;)

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git 
for human beings" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to