Git branch bug

Hello,

I would like to report the following bug:

$ mkdir test $ cd test $ git init Initialized empty Git repository in .git/ $ git branch experimental fatal: Not a valid object name: 'master'.

So, it seems it is not possible to create a named branch on an empty repository.

I'm not subscribed to the list, so please keep me directly on CC for any reply, thanks.

Regards

Guido

Hi,

On Sat, 5 May 2007, Guido Ostkamp wrote:

Actually, it is not possible to branch from a non-existing branch. So, this is somewhat expected from my POV.

Ciao, Dscho

On Sat, 5 May 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

This leaves open the question of how you make your initial commit in a branch that isn't master. I think the answer should be:

 $ git checkout -b experimental
 warning: You appear to be on a branch yet to be born.
 warning: Forcing checkout of HEAD.
 fatal: just how do you expect me to merge 0 trees?

Which should probably be:

 $ git checkout -b experimental
 warning: You appear to be on a branch yet to be born.
 warning: Putting you on a new branch yet to be born.

And leaving .git/HEAD pointing to refs/heads/experimental instead of refs/heads/master, with refs/heads/ still empty.

 $ git branch experimental

Should probably give a more informative error message, but branches with no commits that aren't the current branch has no existance at all, so it can't work to create them without switching to them.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:

While I agree that is probably correct, it would not be useful in real-life that much. When you do not even have 'master', I do not think there is much point of being able to create two useless, yet-to-be-born branches.

Also, once you make a commit on 'master', you would not be able to create a new disconnected root with your suggestion alone. I am not convinced that being able to start a disconnected root is useful to begin with, but it is a different matter. We allow fetching and merging from a different repository to cause disconnected roots to exist in a repository anyway, so I do not see any reason to disallow it either.

Assuming that the ability to switch to a new yet-to-be-born branch is useful, I think the right thing to do is:

 - Regardless of your HEAD state, you may want to have a way to
   create a yet-to-be-born branch and switch to it.  Perhaps
   "git checkout -e new" make HEAD point at refs/heads/new
   without creating one (I picked -e randomly for "empty").

 - When you are on a yet-to-be-born branch, "git checkout -b
   new" and "git checkout -b new HEAD" makes HEAD point at
   refs/heads/new without creating one.  I happen to consider
   this a not so useful corner case, but that is to make things
   consistent.

 - When you are on a yet-to-be-born branch, "git branch new" and
   "git branch new HEAD" is a nonsense operation.  We should
   clearly state that it is nonsense (I am agreeing with the
   last point in your message).

On Sat, 5 May 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

The point is that you may not want to have a branch named "master", but rather want your first branch to be named something else. Your project could be such that "master" would be a confusing term to use for a default branch. Currently, it's awkward to start a project that avoids that particular name, which is what it seemed to me that the original poster was trying to do.

I don't think it's useful to be able to switch to a new yet-to-be-born branch from any other state, but I do think it's useful to be able to choose what the first branch is.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

branch is automatically created when performing the 'git init'. Why is this not the case?

Regards

Guido

Hi,

On Sat, 5 May 2007, Guido Ostkamp wrote:

Well, one side of the branch _is_ created. But you have to provide initial content, to make it a proper branch, from which you can actually branch off.

Having said that, and having read Daniels mail, I agree that this behaviour should be changed, along with the behaviour of "git checkout -b <branch>" in a fresh repo.

It might be the illogical thing, to allow branching of a yet-to-be-initialised branch, but it does not hurt either.

Ciao, Dscho