Re: Why can't git open empty branches ?

From: Hadmut Danisch <hadmut@danisch.de>
Date: Apr 11, 2012, 11:47 UTC
Message-ID: <4F856F67.4000609@danisch.de>
In-Reply-To: <vpq7gxmzf75.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>

Am 11.04.2012 13:21, schrieb Matthieu Moy:

Show 7 quoted lines

> BTW, it is rarely good practice to create an empty branch in an existing
> repository. You'll have different branches that do not share any
> history, and they would likely be better in separate repositories (or at
> least, be in separate local repositories, pushed to the same remote bare
> repository, in which case you don't need anything special, just "git
> init" and "git push"). That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but just
> that you may want to think twice before doing it ;-).

That's a pretty good point for discussion.

Sometimes people are working on different sorts of information, that are nevertheless closely related, e.g. open source software and the web pages describing it (like in git hub), or a web server tree and the software generating it. They are related, but do not logically share a history.

Creating independent branches by pushing two separates into a single remote bare is a nice idea, but if I understood git correctly, the very first commit in a repos is always to the master branch, where you have two masters trying to push into the shared remote bare. This is obviously solvable if you use the correct commands and maybe delete and re-clone the repos, but this is all overcomplicated and non-trivial. Nothing I could do without reading manuals.

So your proposal might work perfectly, but in my eyes it is error prone and not user friendly.

regards