question git & branches

Hello!

I've been trying out git and have some questions...

I installed the latest snapshot of git, pulled down the kernel (2.6.13-rc7), and started hacking. What fun...got myself a git patch and was happy.

Then, decided I wanted to branch off my changes from the main tree so I could maintain the patch-set separate for this particular feature.

I created a new branch 'ben_dev_rfcnt'.

Now, I also have another patch that I wanted to pull into git.

Before merging this, I created another branch 'foo'.

I changed to this branch foo and imported my patch and resolved the conflicts, etc.

I think I'm missing something fundamental though... I wanted to change to the ben_dev_rfcnt branch to build a kernel without my additional patch. git branch ben_dev_rfcnt seems to change it fine, but all of the changes for repository 'foo' are also still here.

Am I completely missing how branches work, or just missing a few commands?

Thanks, Ben

On 8/29/05, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:

Are you using git-checkout to change branches? If you have cogito installed, cg-status is a good, handy way of confirming you are where you expect to be.

You can also do git-show-branch{,es-script}

cheers,

martin

On 8/29/05, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:

You probably looking for "get reset --hard master", which should bring the working tree in sync with cache, but being new to git myself, I'm not sure.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Ben Greear wrote:

"git branch" just creates the branch, it doesn't actually do anything else. Use "git checkout <branchname>" to switch to it.

You can do both with "bit checkout -b <branchname>" which both creates the branch and switches to it.

(Both "git branch" and "git checkout -b <branchname>" that reate a new branch take an optional argument which says what point you want the branch to start at. It defaults to "current state", but you can create a branch at any point in the history by just explicitly stating the commit name that you want to start off with as the head of the branch)

Use "gitk --all" to visualize where the different branches are in the history, and a plain "git branch" with no arguments to list the branches and mark your currently active branch.

				Linus

Linus Torvalds wrote:

I tried 'git checkout ben_dev_rfcnt'. It took a few seconds and had no errors. But, the files created on my other branch still exist in the code tree, and I still see my patch in the existing files.. I would expect them to go away.

I don't think I've managed to commit anything to any branch yet... Could that be part of the problem?

I tried gitk -all, and get this error popup:

Gitk: error reading commits: bad arguments to git-rev-list.
(Note: arguments to gitk are passed to
git-rev-list
to allow selection of commits to be displayed.)

Thanks, Ben

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Ben Greear wrote:

Yes. If you haven't committed anything, then the dirty state follows you to the other branch (unless the branch differs in the dirty files, in which case "git checkout" will refuse with a hopefully quite understandable error message).

Double dashes: "gitk --all".

		Linus

On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 10:03, Linus Torvalds wrote:

This of course, is Git's answer to the long standing UNIX tradition. Whereas UNIX would creat() files, Git will reate() branches.

jdl