Re: More Beginning Git Questions
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 26, 2011, 18:03 UTC
- Message-ID
- <m37h4vp4f0.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
- In-Reply-To
- <1aec7c1qq0n56.sxybjnsj6ngr$.dlg@40tude.net>
tactical <a5158017@nepwk.com> writes:
Show 76 quoted lines
> Konstantin Khomoutov wrote: > >>>>> From what I read, detached heads are subject to garbage collection. >>>> >>>> No, HEAD is protected against garbage collecting. To be sure you >>>> should name a branch when switching branches, though reflog would >>>> protect you for 30 days (by default) even if you don't do that. >>> >>> So Git doesn't really support anonymous branching as part of a normal >>> workflow. >> >> I perceive a certain logical fallacy here: you cannot switch between >> anything anonymous because to switch, you should somehow identify >> something to switch to--a name in whatever sense we put into this word. > > In Mercurial, you can just update to a particular changeset (and you > identify that changeset by repository-local revision number or globally > unique ID) and then commit again. The point is that there's no need to > give a label to a head in Mercurial (although you can if you want to, using > Mercurial bookmarks, which are basically the same as what Git uses). > > Here's an example of anonymous branching: > > c:\test>hg init > > c:\test>echo test>foo > > c:\test>hg commit --addremove -m initial > adding foo > > c:\test>echo first>>foo > > c:\test>hg commit -m first > > c:\test>hg log > changeset: 1:3e895ec28d6c > tag: tip > user: tactical > date: Mon Sep 26 01:39:46 2011 +0100 > summary: first > > changeset: 0:b51644bb3450 > user: tactical > date: Mon Sep 26 01:39:40 2011 +0100 > summary: initial > > c:\test>hg update 0 > 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved > > c:\test>echo second>>foo > > c:\test>hg commit -m second > created new head > > c:\test>hg glog > @ changeset: 2:35c82a7e7de1 > | tag: tip > | parent: 0:b51644bb3450 > | user: tactical > | date: Mon Sep 26 01:40:10 2011 +0100 > | summary: second > | > | o changeset: 1:3e895ec28d6c > |/ user: tactical > | date: Mon Sep 26 01:39:46 2011 +0100 > | summary: first > | > o changeset: 0:b51644bb3450 > user: tactical > date: Mon Sep 26 01:39:40 2011 +0100 > summary: initial > > I now have two anonymous branches, and these will never be garbage > collected. I can easily update to either branch with "hg update 1" or "hg > update 2" (or "hg update 0" again, if i want to create yet another > anonymous branch).
In my opinion the need to examine either log ('hg glog') or heads
('hg heads'?) to see how to switch to anonymous branch is a PITA
that far outweights the need to name branches (to give a temporary,
local-only branch name) in Git.
Nb. by using "detached HEAD" for anonymous branch I meant the
following:$ git checkout --detach $ ... $ <work on detached head>
worth saving?
Y. $ git branch -b t foo/temp
$ git checkout <other branch>
N. $ git checkout <other branch>Show 9 quoted lines
> > The branch names is just a way to not mess with > > SHA-1 names of commits (and to have references to those commits to keep > > them out of consideration for garbage collection). > > Hence the idea to demand support for anonymous branches in Git's model > > is just unfounded. > > I think it's simply a weakness of Git. There are zero problems with > anonymous branching in Mercurial, and it's a very powerful and simple > system.
IMVVVHO it is just remains of bad initial design decision of Mercurial about representing branches ;-PPPPPPP
Only now Mercurial has something (transferable bookmarks) which approaches flexibility and usability of Git branches. It took them how long... and even then there is a [supposedly] user-friendly but flexibility-reducing notion that branch (bookmark) names are global.
Not that Git didn't and doesn't have its share of bad design decisions (like autimatically committing a merge).
-- Jakub Narębski