bug or a general misunderstanding

bug or a general misunderstanding

[andre_pohlmann]

Hello there

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place here.
Maybe it's a bug or a general misunderstanding of how GIT works.

The following situation: I wanted to create a branch from a commit. From 
there on the work should be continued.

The possible bug:
The newly created branch is missing commits in the history. Not only are 
they not displayed, the code changes are not present.
It doesn't matter if the branch is created by Visual Studio or GIT for 
Windows.
Only in a branch created by GitHub Desktop the commits are present, as I 
would expect.

Is this a bug or do I not understand how GIT works?

Best regards and thank you for the effort
André Pohlmann

Re: bug or a general misunderstanding

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Wed, Nov 10 2021, andre_pohlmann@posteo.de wrote:

> Hello there
>
> I'm not sure if I'm in the right place here.
> Maybe it's a bug or a general misunderstanding of how GIT works.
>
> The following situation: I wanted to create a branch from a
> commit. From there on the work should be continued.
>
> The possible bug:
> The newly created branch is missing commits in the history. Not only
> are they not displayed, the code changes are not present.
> It doesn't matter if the branch is created by Visual Studio or GIT for
> Windows.
> Only in a branch created by GitHub Desktop the commits are present, as
> I would expect.
>
> Is this a bug or do I not understand how GIT works?
>
> Best regards and thank you for the effort
> André Pohlmann

Hi there.

The mailing list you contacted is the Git development mailing list. I
think it's fair to assume that you haven't run into a bug in git, but
are in need of more basic resources on the topic of Git.

Git's pretty good at retaining your data, if you can't find it after
saving it in git the reason for why is likely to be explained by an
introductory tutorial.

A good resource to start with is: https://git-scm.com/community

Re: bug or a general misunderstanding

[Johannes Schindelin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 943 bytes --]

Hi André,

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021, andre_pohlmann@posteo.de wrote:

> The following situation: I wanted to create a branch from a commit. From there
> on the work should be continued.

I suspect that the command you used was `git branch <name> <commit>`? That
_creates_ the branch, but does not switch to it. You need to call `git
switch <name>` to switch the worktree to it. If you want to do all in one
go, use `git switch -c <name> <commit>`.

Ciao,
Johannes

>
> The possible bug:
> The newly created branch is missing commits in the history. Not only are they
> not displayed, the code changes are not present.
> It doesn't matter if the branch is created by Visual Studio or GIT for
> Windows.
> Only in a branch created by GitHub Desktop the commits are present, as I would
> expect.
>
> Is this a bug or do I not understand how GIT works?
>
> Best regards and thank you for the effort
> André Pohlmann
>
>

Re: bug or a general misunderstanding

[andre_pohlmann]

Hello Johannes,

Thanks for your ideas.

I have checked out the respective new branch and switched between the 
original and the new, multiple times.
Otherwise I would not have noticed the lack of commits.

I have also set up a virtual machine, free of any IDE or GIT. There I 
only installed Git for Windows and repeated the process via cmd. The 
result is the same, there are missing commits in the history compared to 
the original branch.

Best regards
André Pohlmann

Am 10.11.2021 15:46 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
> Hi André,
> 
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021, andre_pohlmann@posteo.de wrote:
> 
>> The following situation: I wanted to create a branch from a commit. 
>> From there
>> on the work should be continued.
> 
> I suspect that the command you used was `git branch <name> <commit>`? 
> That
> _creates_ the branch, but does not switch to it. You need to call `git
> switch <name>` to switch the worktree to it. If you want to do all in 
> one
> go, use `git switch -c <name> <commit>`.
> 
> Ciao,
> Johannes
> 
>> 
>> The possible bug:
>> The newly created branch is missing commits in the history. Not only 
>> are they
>> not displayed, the code changes are not present.
>> It doesn't matter if the branch is created by Visual Studio or GIT for
>> Windows.
>> Only in a branch created by GitHub Desktop the commits are present, as 
>> I would
>> expect.
>> 
>> Is this a bug or do I not understand how GIT works?
>> 
>> Best regards and thank you for the effort
>> André Pohlmann
>> 
>> 

Re: bug or a general misunderstanding

[andre_pohlmann]

Hi,

Starting from the relevant branch

git branch TEST_1
git checkout TEST_1
git status

then

git checkout BBV ---- that is the original Branch
git branch TEST_2 ff2c8952 ---- the commit to check out from
git checkout TEST_2
git status

git branch --contains 48c8756e ---- the commit with the specific code

the result is that only TEST_1 is shown, not TEST_2.
It looks to me like the commit is missing.
When I look at the code, the lines in question are also missing.


Am 11.11.2021 22:34 schrieb brian m. carlson:
> On 2021-11-10 at 18:27:56, andre_pohlmann@posteo.de wrote:
>> Hello Johannes,
>> 
>> Thanks for your ideas.
>> 
>> I have checked out the respective new branch and switched between the
>> original and the new, multiple times.
>> Otherwise I would not have noticed the lack of commits.
>> 
>> I have also set up a virtual machine, free of any IDE or GIT. There I 
>> only
>> installed Git for Windows and repeated the process via cmd. The result 
>> is
>> the same, there are missing commits in the history compared to the 
>> original
>> branch.
> 
> Could you give us a set of commands you've run (in Git Bash) to create 
> a
> new test repository (or clone an existing public repository) and
> reproduce this problem?  Right now, we don't know exactly what you've
> done, so we can only speculate about what you're seeing.

Re: bug or a general misunderstanding

[Jeff King]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:56:00AM +0000, andre_pohlmann@posteo.de wrote:

> Starting from the relevant branch
> 
> git branch TEST_1
> git checkout TEST_1
> git status

OK, so TEST_1 points at something. We don't know what, but from below,
it sounds like the BBV branch.

> then
> 
> git checkout BBV ---- that is the original Branch
> git branch TEST_2 ff2c8952 ---- the commit to check out from

OK, so now TEST_2 is created from ff2c8952. But from the details you've
given, we don't know what relationship that has to what was on BBV, or
any other commit.

> git checkout TEST_2
> git status

And now it's our HEAD, though I don't think that matters, because...

> git branch --contains 48c8756e ---- the commit with the specific code

...this is asking which branches contain 48c8756e, and doesn't care
about HEAD at all.

> the result is that only TEST_1 is shown, not TEST_2.
> It looks to me like the commit is missing.

I can't say if this is a bug or not, without knowing the relationship
between 48c8756e and ff2c8952. Have you tried something like:

  git log --oneline --graph 48c8756e...ff2c8952

That should show you whether one is an ancestor of the other.

-Peff

Re: bug or a general misunderstanding

[andre_pohlmann]

Good Morning Peff,

I am not sure how to interpret the result. I just get a graph displayed.
Does this refer to the current branch?

Is it possible that the commit 48c8756e is in the history of a branch 
but not an ancestor of ff2c8952?
Would this mean that GIT ignores commits in the history if they are not 
direct ancestors of the commit from which the branch is created?

And why is the behavior of creating the branch different compared to Git 
Hub Desktop?

André


Am 15.11.2021 22:08 schrieb Jeff King:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:56:00AM +0000, andre_pohlmann@posteo.de 
> wrote:
> 
>> Starting from the relevant branch
>> 
>> git branch TEST_1
>> git checkout TEST_1
>> git status
> 
> OK, so TEST_1 points at something. We don't know what, but from below,
> it sounds like the BBV branch.
> 
>> then
>> 
>> git checkout BBV ---- that is the original Branch
>> git branch TEST_2 ff2c8952 ---- the commit to check out from
> 
> OK, so now TEST_2 is created from ff2c8952. But from the details you've
> given, we don't know what relationship that has to what was on BBV, or
> any other commit.
> 
>> git checkout TEST_2
>> git status
> 
> And now it's our HEAD, though I don't think that matters, because...
> 
>> git branch --contains 48c8756e ---- the commit with the specific code
> 
> ...this is asking which branches contain 48c8756e, and doesn't care
> about HEAD at all.
> 
>> the result is that only TEST_1 is shown, not TEST_2.
>> It looks to me like the commit is missing.
> 
> I can't say if this is a bug or not, without knowing the relationship
> between 48c8756e and ff2c8952. Have you tried something like:
> 
>   git log --oneline --graph 48c8756e...ff2c8952
> 
> That should show you whether one is an ancestor of the other.
> 
> -Peff