question concerning branches

Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com> writes:

No, I passed over the commit in my example. I know that after the commit the things are as they ought to be, but what if I can't do a commit because I am in the middle of coding and have to have a break?

I want an unchanged file in master if I switch there (because I worked in a different branch) and a changed version in the test branch.

Why is the *master* different depending on whether my work in test in still going on or committed?!

Actually, I cannot image how branches are practicable if I always have to have in mind possibly still uncommitted work. Shouldn't it be git's work to ensure that master will remain it was when branching?

Without git I'd make a copy for testing new features. With git, it seems that I have to do the same (a clone). This is what I don't understand.

I find it highly confusing. I understood a branch as something I can do in whatever I want without affecting master. But now a learn that everything I do in the branch will happen in master, too, until I commit. Strange. Very strange.

Yes, but isn't it annoying to leave the test branch always either with stash or commit in order to have an unchanged master?!

Ingo