Re: can anybody explain the following to a git noob?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>
> Obviously, there's more before the transcript started; otherwise, there
> would be nothing to import in the initial commit, and there certainly
> wouldn't be .git directories that came from nowhere.

Sorry. The command before git init is svn export  blah/blah/blah/

I am taking a rails project and putting it under git.  The .git files
are there in the pluging because the plugins are hosted on github and
they ware installed via git clone.

I know people keep mentioning those directories so I want to repeat
myself.  I renamed the test directory which had no .git folders
anywhere in them.  It contains the tests for the rails project and
nothing else.



> I don't think any
> version control system I know of likes having your initial import be of a
> directory with other working directories for the same system as
> subdirectories. (That is, Mercurial will be fine having git working
> directories in the import, but git won't, and Mercurial wouldn't be happy
> about having Mercurial working directories as subdirectories).
>

I now realize that.  I did however did the same thing again but first
deleted all the .git directories before doing a git init.  The end
result didn't change.


>> > In this case, when you checkout the
>> > branch that does not have test_new, only the tracked files are removed;
>> > the ignored (i.e untracked) files remain. Therefore, after the checkout
>> > you still have a test_new directory.

I now understand that this is the way git works. I wasn't expecting
this though. I was exptecting the master branch to look like it was
before I switched to another branch and mucked around.

As I said in a previous email mercurial worked as I was expecting.
Subversion also works the way I expected. Coming from subversion I
never expected git to carry the new directory name into the original
branch.

The way I have always thought about branches was that they are
isolated from other branches and it surprised me greatly when git
"leaked" the new directory from the "my_branch" branch into master.

I still kind of think I did something wrong.  This behavior seems
extremely odd to me.

> This tends to happen if, while on a different branch, you editted some
> files and left editor backups or compiled (maybe just-in-time) files in
> that directory. Then there are files in the directory that don't belong to
> any branch, since they're not source files.

I didn't edit any files. I didn't compile anything. There should have
been on artifacts of any sort.  I did a commit before switching
branches.


> It's also highly likely that what's missing is stuff you thought you
> imported initially, but did not actually import due to the confusion with
> it already being a git working directory.
>

As I said the test directories did not have any .git directories in
them. If they had  git mv would not have worked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]