From: David Symonds Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 12:13:36 GMT Subject: Re: Git branches - confusing behavior Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4826E255.6030005@gmail.com> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Dima Kagan wrote: > David Symonds wrote: >> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Dima Kagan 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.