On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:42:49PM -0500, Brandon Casey wrote: > Again, as I mentioned to Boaz, there is really no benefit to reusing > a single branch name if that is what you are trying to do. The cost > of branching in git is 41 bytes i.e. nil. The main reason that I find for reusing a branch name is for my integration branch. I have a script which basically does: git checkout integration git reset --hard origin git merge branch-A git merge branch-B git merge branch-C git merge branch-D I suppose I could have avoided the use of git reset with something like this: git update-index --refresh --unmerged > /dev/null if git diff-index --name-only HEAD | read dummy; then echo "There are local changes; refusing to build integration branch!" exit 1 fi git update-ref refs/heads/integration origin git checkout integration git merge branch-A git merge branch-B git merge branch-C git merge branch-D Instead, I've just learned to be careful and my use of git reset --hard is mainly for historical reasons. But the point is, I can very easily think of workflows where it makes sense to reuse a branch name, most of them having to do with creating integration branches which are basically throwaways after I am done testing or building that combined tree. - Ted -- 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
