Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 04:47:55AM CEST, I got a letter
where Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
>       git branch --- creates a branch from a given commit
>                       (when passed empty commit, creates a branch
>                       from the current commit and sets the working
>                       tree to that branch)
> Note that there is a bug in current git update - it will allow you to
> bring several of your trees to follow the same branch, or even a remote
> branch. This is not even supposed to work, and will be fixed when I get
> some sleep. You will be able to do git pull even on local branches, and
> the proper solution for this will be just tracking the branch you want
> to follow.

I must admit that I'm not entirely decided yet, so I'd love to hear your

I'm wondering, whether each tree should be fixed to a certain branch.
That is, you decide a name when you do git fork, and then the tree
always follows that branch. (It always has to follow [be bound to]
*some* branch, and each branch can be followed by only a single tree at
a time.)

Currently, you can at anytime "mark" a new branch (by git branch) and
you can freely "rebranch" your tree (by git update). An alternative
approach would be to disallow git update to "rebranch" and remove the
git branch command (you'd always do git fork).

 From what I know, the alternative approach is nearer to what BK takes,
and it would be _slightly_ simpler (maybe). OTOH the current approach is
I believe more powerful, and could require less resources.

WWhat do you think,

                                Petr "Pasky" Baudis
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to