From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Bug: "git checkout -b" should be allowed in empty repo Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 03:57:07 -0500 Message-ID: <20120206085707.GA24149@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vwr8bvvxj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4F263AEE.4080409@alum.mit.edu> <7v39axc9gp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vaa55ar4v.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120130215043.GB16149@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vobtcbtqa.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120206043012.GD29365@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120206050637.GA4263@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4F2F94AC.6010800@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Andrew Ardill , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Haggerty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 06 09:57:16 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RuKNv-0001cY-Ib for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:57:15 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753967Ab2BFI5K (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 03:57:10 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:58713 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751087Ab2BFI5J (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 03:57:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 25763 invoked by uid 107); 6 Feb 2012 09:04:16 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:04:16 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 06 Feb 2012 03:57:07 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F2F94AC.6010800@alum.mit.edu> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:51:56AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote: > On 02/06/2012 06:06 AM, Jeff King wrote: > >I don't recall seeing anybody complain seriously about it in the past > >six years of git's existence. > > In the real-world situation when I noticed this bug, I wasn't trying to > use a nonstandard name for "master". What I was doing is importing a > snapshot of some code from another non-git project onto a "vendor > branch", which I knew I would later want to merge into my own work > (which I planned to do on master). Thanks, that sounds like a very reasonable use case. I stand corrected. (For some reason I thought you ran across it accidentally while mucking with "--edit-description", since were talking about that an unborn branches in a nearby thread). -Peff PS I probably would have done it as: git init vendor cd vendor import import import cd .. git init project cd project git fetch ../vendor master:vendor but I don't think there's anything wrong with your approach (in fact, it's slightly more efficient).