Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:17:00AM CEST, I got a letter
where Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > 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
> > opinion.
> > 
> > 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.)
> I don't think I'm following the use of branches. Currently, what I do is
> have a git-pasky and a git-linus, and fork off a working directory from
> one of these for each thing I want to work on. I do some work, commit as I
> make progress, and then do a diff against the remote head to get a patch
> to send off. If I want to do a series of patches which depend on each
> other, I fork my next directory off of my previous one rather than off of
> a remote base. I haven't done much rebasing, so I haven't worked out how I
> would do that most effectively.

Yes. And that's exactly what the branches allow you to do. You just do

        git fork myhttpclient ~/myhttpclientdir

then you do some hacking, and when you have something usable, you can
go back to your main working directory and do

        git merge -b when_you_started myhttpclient

Since you consider the code perfect, you can now just rm -rf

Suddenly, you get a mail from mj pointing out some bugs, and it looks
like there are more to come. What to do?

        git fork myhttpclient ~/myhttpclientdir

(Ok, this does not work, but that's a bug, will fix tomorrow.) This will
let you take off when you left in your work on the branch.

git update for seeking between commits is probably extremely important
for any kind of binary search when you are wondering when did this bug
appeared first, or when you are exploring how certain branch evolved
over time. Doing git fork for each successive iteration sounds horrible.

Now, what about git branch and git update for switching between
branches? I think this is the most controversial part; these are
basically just shortcuts for not having to do git fork, and I wouldn't
mind so much removing them, if you people really consider them too ugly
a wart for the soft clean git skin. I admit that they both come from a
hidden prejudice that git fork is going to be slow and eat a lot of

The idea for git branch is to mark a commit as "this is a branch but I
don't want to git fork" (because I'm lazy or short on disk space or
whatever). Let's say you are tracking a branch, do some local commits
and then want to untrack. This will get you back to HEAD.local, but you
want to keep a reference for your local commits, and possibly work on
them more later - so you mark them as a branch. But thinking about it, I
couldn't come up with another usage case than this, and I think that now
that we have git fork, I will modify git track behaviour heavily so that
tracking/untracking won't really switch you to the other branch
completely, but really only tell git pull that you want the pulled
updates applied. So git branch command will likely go.

The idea for git update for switching between branches is that
especially when you have two rather similar branches and mostly do stuff
on one of them, but sometimes you want to do something on the other one,
you can do just quick git update, do stuff, and git update back, without
any forking.

Note that this all is *absolutely* subject to change, provided you can
convince me about some better way. ;-) My mindset on this is pretty
open. This is just what seems to me as a pretty flexible and elegant to
do stuff, while giving you enough freedom to pick your own style.

> I think I can make this space efficient by hardlinking unmodified blobs to
> a directory of cached expanded blobs.

I don't know but I really feel *very* unsafe when doing that. What if
something screws up and corrupts my base... way too easy. And it gets
pretty inconvenient and even more dangerous when you get the idea to do
some modifications on your tree by something else than your favorite
editor (which you've already checked does the right thing).

                                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