bug or a general misunderstanding

> Hello there
>
> I'm not sure if I'm in the right place here.
> Maybe it's a bug or a general misunderstanding of how GIT works.
>
> The following situation: I wanted to create a branch from a
> commit. From there on the work should be continued.
>
> The possible bug:
> The newly created branch is missing commits in the history. Not only
> are they not displayed, the code changes are not present.
> It doesn't matter if the branch is created by Visual Studio or GIT for
> Windows.
> Only in a branch created by GitHub Desktop the commits are present, as
> I would expect.
>
> Is this a bug or do I not understand how GIT works?
>
> Best regards and thank you for the effort
> André Pohlmann

>
> The possible bug:
> The newly created branch is missing commits in the history. Not only are they
> not displayed, the code changes are not present.
> It doesn't matter if the branch is created by Visual Studio or GIT for
> Windows.
> Only in a branch created by GitHub Desktop the commits are present, as I would
> expect.
>
> Is this a bug or do I not understand how GIT works?
>
> Best regards and thank you for the effort
> André Pohlmann
>
>

> Hi André,
> 
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021, andre_pohlmann@posteo.de wrote:
> 
>> The following situation: I wanted to create a branch from a commit. 
>> From there
>> on the work should be continued.
> 
> I suspect that the command you used was `git branch <name> <commit>`? 
> That
> _creates_ the branch, but does not switch to it. You need to call `git
> switch <name>` to switch the worktree to it. If you want to do all in 
> one
> go, use `git switch -c <name> <commit>`.
> 
> Ciao,
> Johannes
> 
>> 
>> The possible bug:
>> The newly created branch is missing commits in the history. Not only 
>> are they
>> not displayed, the code changes are not present.
>> It doesn't matter if the branch is created by Visual Studio or GIT for
>> Windows.
>> Only in a branch created by GitHub Desktop the commits are present, as 
>> I would
>> expect.
>> 
>> Is this a bug or do I not understand how GIT works?
>> 
>> Best regards and thank you for the effort
>> André Pohlmann
>> 
>> 

> On 2021-11-10 at 18:27:56, andre_pohlmann@posteo.de wrote:
>> Hello Johannes,
>> 
>> Thanks for your ideas.
>> 
>> I have checked out the respective new branch and switched between the
>> original and the new, multiple times.
>> Otherwise I would not have noticed the lack of commits.
>> 
>> I have also set up a virtual machine, free of any IDE or GIT. There I 
>> only
>> installed Git for Windows and repeated the process via cmd. The result 
>> is
>> the same, there are missing commits in the history compared to the 
>> original
>> branch.
> 
> Could you give us a set of commands you've run (in Git Bash) to create 
> a
> new test repository (or clone an existing public repository) and
> reproduce this problem?  Right now, we don't know exactly what you've
> done, so we can only speculate about what you're seeing.

> Starting from the relevant branch
> 
> git branch TEST_1
> git checkout TEST_1
> git status

> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:56:00AM +0000, andre_pohlmann@posteo.de 
> wrote:
> 
>> Starting from the relevant branch
>> 
>> git branch TEST_1
>> git checkout TEST_1
>> git status
> 
> OK, so TEST_1 points at something. We don't know what, but from below,
> it sounds like the BBV branch.
> 
>> then
>> 
>> git checkout BBV ---- that is the original Branch
>> git branch TEST_2 ff2c8952 ---- the commit to check out from
> 
> OK, so now TEST_2 is created from ff2c8952. But from the details you've
> given, we don't know what relationship that has to what was on BBV, or
> any other commit.
> 
>> git checkout TEST_2
>> git status
> 
> And now it's our HEAD, though I don't think that matters, because...
> 
>> git branch --contains 48c8756e ---- the commit with the specific code
> 
> ...this is asking which branches contain 48c8756e, and doesn't care
> about HEAD at all.
> 
>> the result is that only TEST_1 is shown, not TEST_2.
>> It looks to me like the commit is missing.
> 
> I can't say if this is a bug or not, without knowing the relationship
> between 48c8756e and ff2c8952. Have you tried something like:
> 
>   git log --oneline --graph 48c8756e...ff2c8952
> 
> That should show you whether one is an ancestor of the other.
> 
> -Peff