threads / discuss / 13359

Re: Parent-less branches

Subject: Re: Parent-less branches

## tl;dr

4 messages between May 2, 2008 and May 4, 2008.

replies: 3people: 4as markdown or json

Ulrik Sverdrup· May 2, 2008, 23:20 UTC · lore
Show 9 quoted lines
> I wanted to do this just the other day, but I did it all inside the  
> one repo, and made some notes on the process here:
> 
> http://rails.wincent.com/wiki/Creating_independent_branches_with_Git
> 
> Basically, using "git write-tree" and "git commit-tree" plumbing.
> 
> Cheers,
> Wincent
I think I've seen this done much simpler, in this blog post:
http://madduck.net/blog/2007.07.11:creating-a-git-branch-without-ancestry/

Even though your instructions seem more complicated than they are since they mix setting up the parentless branch and preparing the first commit content.

regards, ulrik

(I am not on the list, please CC)
Jakub Narebski· May 3, 2008, 00:17 UTC · re: Ulrik Sverdrup · lore
Ulrik Sverdrup <ulrik.sverdrup@gmail.com> writes:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> writes:
>>
>> I wanted to do this just the other day, but I did it all inside the  
>> one repo, and made some notes on the process here:
>> 
>> http://rails.wincent.com/wiki/Creating_independent_branches_with_Git
>> 
>> Basically, using "git write-tree" and "git commit-tree" plumbing.
> 
> I think I've seen this done much simpler, in this blog post:
> 
> http://madduck.net/blog/2007.07.11:creating-a-git-branch-without-ancestry/

And it is mentioned in http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/BlogPosts, athough not yet in either GitTips or GitFaq.

In short the solution is to create content-less branch using:
  $ git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/newbranch
  $ rm .git/index
 
then commit.
> Even though your instructions seem more complicated than they are since
> they mix setting up the parentless branch and preparing the first
> commit content.
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git
Sverre Rabbelier· May 3, 2008, 00:46 UTC · re: Jakub Narebski · lore
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
>  In short the solution is to create content-less branch using:
>
>   $ git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/newbranch
>   $ rm .git/index
>
>  then commit.

I guess what Pedro is asking is if there isn't a builtin way to do this. Which, if I understand correctly, there isn't. Perhaps though something like "git branch -N newbranchname" which then creates a new parentless branch. It could just be a shell script that does the above, but I wonder if there are no side-effects of the above? It sounds somewhat 'messy' to remove the index? Too 'low level' to do for a user I mean, what if sometime in the future we decide to store something in the index that -is- important? I reckon it would be cleaner to add an option for this.

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier
Daniel Barkalow· May 4, 2008, 05:50 UTC · re: Sverre Rabbelier · lore
On Sat, 3 May 2008, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  In short the solution is to create content-less branch using:
> >
> >   $ git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/newbranch
> >   $ rm .git/index
> >
> >  then commit.
> 
> I guess what Pedro is asking is if there isn't a builtin way to do
> this. Which, if I understand correctly, there isn't. Perhaps though
> something like "git branch -N newbranchname" which then creates a new
> parentless branch. It could just be a shell script that does the
> above, but I wonder if there are no side-effects of the above? It
> sounds somewhat 'messy' to remove the index? Too 'low level' to do for
> a user I mean, what if sometime in the future we decide to store
> something in the index that -is- important? I reckon it would be
> cleaner to add an option for this.

If sometime in the future we decide to store something in the index that is important, we'll definitely want to remove the index, because whatever it is will be both important and -wrong- for a new parentless commit, since a new root should have all the default values, not values acquired during the other history in the repo.

On the other hand, a builtin command of that sort probably ought to make sure that there aren't any uncommitted changes before doing this. And it should probably be called "git checkout -b name -N", since it makes it your current branch, rather than creating it like "git branch ..." would suggest.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

← back to recent threads