On Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 16:43:52 (-0500) Jeff King writes: >On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 03:21:38PM -0600, Bill Lear wrote: > >> Ok, so I break the model, what is the harm in that? Can I no longer >> pull from or push to the remote branch? Do I corrupt something >> locally? Does something else break? I'm trying to formulate an >> explanation to our users why the 1.5 way is superior and I can't just >> say "if you do that you break the model". > >The commits you make will not actually go onto that tracking branch; >they will be part of a "detached HEAD" (that is, your HEAD doesn't point >to _any_ branch). Once you check out a different branch, you will >potentially lose those commits (actually, they will still be available >through your reflog, but you will have to know to look for them there). Is this really the way 1.4.4.1 works? I have (mistakenly) been working on my tracking branch, committing to it, pushing it, pulling in from elsewhere, shifting to new branches, etc., and I haven't lost anything, and can't see what harm I've done... >> BTW, again, why does git clone not have an option to just create all >> of the "working versions" (better name needed) of tracking branches? > >I don't recall anybody asking for it, yet. I think the idea is that >those branches would just be clutter. If you want to work on something, >it's easy enough to just start a local version of the branch: > > git checkout -b topic origin/topic Sure, it is easy, but it's surprising to (our) users when they do a clone and can't "jump right in", and have to spend 3 seconds doing the above... Bill - 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