Re: Git branches - confusing behavior

From: David Symonds <dsymonds@gmail.com>
Date: May 11, 2008, 12:13 UTC
Message-ID: <ee77f5c20805110513k4d34c8f8m83dd9d75a8ec47f4@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4826E255.6030005@gmail.com>

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Dima Kagan <dima.kagan@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> David Symonds wrote:
>> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Dima Kagan <dima.kagan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That's a subjective point of view :) I'm coming from the SVN world and uncommitted changes on one branch don't affect other branches. Is there a way I can achieve this behavior with git?
>>
>> If you *really* want SVN's behaviour of "branches", just copy your
>> whole working tree (including the .git directory) and start making
>> changes in that. Then they'll be completely separate and you can just
>> 'cd' between them.
>>
>>
>> Dave.
>
> What's the point of using git then? :) I like the way branches are created and switched in git, but I would like each branch to preserve it's own history of modifications. Is that too much to ask? :)

Preserving history is called "committing", which is how git branches preserve their own history. You said you don't want to commit changes. You can't have it both ways. :-P

Dave.