From: Petr Baudis Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:48:17 GMT Subject: Re: git-show --stat on first commit Message-ID: <20061121184817.GE7201@pasky.or.cz> In-Reply-To: <200611211839.58709.andyparkins@gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 07:39:56PM CET, Andy Parkins wrote: > On Tuesday 2006, November 21 18:21, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > (The answer is usually "create the branch in a separate repo and then > > fetch it to the original one". But it feels a bit kludgy given the > > otherwise seamless support for unrelated branches. (Not that I ever was > > a big fan of unrelated long-lived branches in general.)) > > Just as kludgy, but I did this today by writing the name of the new branch > in .git/HEAD then doing > > for file in $(git-ls-files); do git-update-index --force-remove $file; done > > Before creating the new files and "git-commit"ing. Ok, this approach looks actually reasonable (contrary to the frequently suggested rm approach, which is rather dangerous). Perhaps git checkout --empty could do this? -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ The meaning of Stonehenge in Traflamadorian, when viewed from above, is: "Replacement part being rushed with all possible speed."