On Sat, 5 May 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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. > > 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. 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* - 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