Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:
>I also prefer the second variant. Having a "virtual" branch after the
>split is just confusing, especially if it can be checked out. If we
>instantiate "A", "B" and "A and B" as e.g. "7.4", "7.5" and "7.3",
>then no commits should exist on the "7.3" branch after the split.
The way this would look in git is that you would just have 7.4, 7.5 and 7.3.
There would not be a way of checking out the virtual branch, and there
would not exist commits on the 7.3 branch after the split (i.e.
checking out 7.3 would just give the snapshot it which the split
occurred). It's just a matter of where you hang the labels/branches.
The virtual branch is never seen, except when you view that spot
in a graph visualiser.
--
Sincerely,
Stephen R. van den Berg.
Humor in the Court: Q: What happened then? A: He told me, he says,
"I have to kill you because you can identify me." Q: Did he kill you? A: No.
