On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:00:23 PM UTC+5:30, Peter J Weisberg wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, Mostafa Alshrief <mostafa_alshr...@yahoo.com> 
> wrote:
> >
> >> If any of the uncommitted changes collide with files changed between 
> branches, it will refuse to switch, and ask you to stash the changes first
> >
> > what do you mean by collide with files..?
> If A.txt on master is different from A.txt on develop, then when you 
> switch branches Git must change A.txt on disk.
> If you have uncommited changes, so that A.txt on disk is different from 
> A.txt on develop, then Git will REFUSE to switch branches if doing so would 
> require changing A.txt.  That's what was meant by a collision.
> However, if A.txt on master is the same as A.txt on develop, then it 
> doesn't need to be changed when you switch branches.  Git is able to switch 
> without corrupting your local changes.
> -- 
> -PJ
> Gehm's Corollary to Clark's Law: Any technology distinguishable from
> magic is insufficiently advanced.

I don't understand why each branch has to be related to one
another.  Here's my thought, i should be able to create
multiple branches each possibly with certain tag version.
The work done in each branch can be on completely different
files or the same files. Once changes to a branch is
complete they can be commited and pushed to the master.
These changes can be pulled in to the other branch by
pulling the changes from the master. If there are any
conflicts they can be resolved manually.  This way i can
work parallely on multiple things without affecting from
each other. I was of this opinion when i first came to
know about git branching.

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