From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rene Herman Subject: Re: git branch --switch? Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:24:27 +0200 Message-ID: <4624F4BB.7010308@gmail.com> References: <4624CD58.90103@gmail.com> <4624EAAA.6040000@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Brian Gernhardt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 17 18:27:14 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HdqVn-00010Z-5t for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:26:35 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031158AbXDQQ0b (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:26:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031161AbXDQQ0b (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:26:31 -0400 Received: from smtpq1.groni1.gr.home.nl ([213.51.130.200]:51971 "EHLO smtpq1.groni1.gr.home.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031158AbXDQQ0a (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:26:30 -0400 Received: from [213.51.130.190] (port=39315 helo=smtp1.groni1.gr.home.nl) by smtpq1.groni1.gr.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1HdqVh-0001sS-KB; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:26:29 +0200 Received: from cc334381-b.groni1.gr.home.nl ([82.73.12.33]:33063 helo=[192.168.0.3]) by smtp1.groni1.gr.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1HdqVc-00011a-9E; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:26:24 +0200 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070221) In-Reply-To: <4624EAAA.6040000@gmail.com> X-AtHome-MailScanner-Information: Please contact support@home.nl for more information X-AtHome-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 04/17/2007 05:41 PM, Rene Herman wrote: > You'd be quite right in saying that there isn't much point; if I want to > now start populating branch a, I have to "git checkout a" anyway, and > that action _will_ now be instantaneous. Actually, I take that back, it's not instantaneous at all. 1995 systems are much better at showing long delays than those fancy modern computers are! Rene.