Re: Bootstrapping into git, commit gripes at me

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:43:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

quoted

No, git-checkout-script _shouldn't_ have done that. It will do the 
read-tree on the tag (which will do the right thing), but it won't change 
the HEAD itself.

In preparation of actually updating the HEAD, I just made "git checkout" 
verify that it only checks out a commit, not a tree tag or something like 
that. Too late for Marc, but next time around a "git checkout v2.6.11" 

:-) 

will result in

	[torvalds@g5 linux]$ git checkout v2.6.11
	error: Object 5dc01c595e6c6ec9ccda4f6f69c131c0dd945f8c is a tree, not a commit
	Needed a single revision

On the other hand, creating a new branch might be a but surprising to 
people: "But I just wanted to check it out". But as far as I can see, it's 
the only safe thing to do, and it has the advantage that you can then go 
back to the old state with a simple "git checkout master".

But what about the branch name? Should we just ask the user? Together with 
a flag, like

	git checkout -b new-branch v2.6.12

for somebody who wants to specify the branch name? Or should we pick a 
random name and add a helper function to rename a branch later?

Opinions?

From my POV, what I want is a branch with the tag v2.6.12 as the basis

of the branch.  I'm guessing that -b means "make me a branch and call
it this".

 # git checkout -b BRANCH_NAME [TAG]

If the TAG is omitted, the branch is made from the current HEAD or
some other reasonable point defined by the current working directory.

Are uncommitted changes present in the working directory maintained?
Discarded?  I wont't care since I'll never be doing that.  At least,
not on purpose.