Git branch bug

Hello,

I would like to report the following bug:

$ mkdir test
$ cd test
$ git init
Initialized empty Git repository in .git/
$ git branch experimental
fatal: Not a valid object name: 'master'.

So, it seems it is not possible to create a named branch on an empty 
repository.

I'm not subscribed to the list, so please keep me directly on CC for any 
reply, thanks.

Regards

Guido

Hi,

On Sat, 5 May 2007, Guido Ostkamp wrote:

$ mkdir test
$ cd test
$ git init
Initialized empty Git repository in .git/
$ git branch experimental
fatal: Not a valid object name: 'master'.

So, it seems it is not possible to create a named branch on an empty
repository.

Actually, it is not possible to branch from a non-existing branch. So, 
this is somewhat expected from my POV.

Ciao,
Dscho

On Sat, 5 May 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Hi,

On Sat, 5 May 2007, Guido Ostkamp wrote:

quoted

$ mkdir test
$ cd test
$ git init
Initialized empty Git repository in .git/
$ git branch experimental
fatal: Not a valid object name: 'master'.

So, it seems it is not possible to create a named branch on an empty
repository.

Actually, it is not possible to branch from a non-existing branch. So, 
this is somewhat expected from my POV.

This leaves open the question of how you make your initial commit in a 
branch that isn't master. I think the answer should be:

 $ git checkout -b experimental
 warning: You appear to be on a branch yet to be born.
 warning: Forcing checkout of HEAD.
 fatal: just how do you expect me to merge 0 trees?

Which should probably be:

 $ git checkout -b experimental
 warning: You appear to be on a branch yet to be born.
 warning: Putting you on a new branch yet to be born.

And leaving .git/HEAD pointing to refs/heads/experimental instead of 
refs/heads/master, with refs/heads/ still empty.

 $ git branch experimental

Should probably give a more informative error message, but branches with 
no commits that aren't the current branch has no existance at all, so it 
can't work to create them without switching to them.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

On Sat, 5 May 2007, Guido Ostkamp wrote:

quoted

$ mkdir test
$ cd test
$ git init
Initialized empty Git repository in .git/
$ git branch experimental
fatal: Not a valid object name: 'master'.

So, it seems it is not possible to create a named branch on an empty
repository.

Actually, it is not possible to branch from a non-existing branch. So,
this is somewhat expected from my POV.

From a git beginners point of view, I would expect that the 'master' 

branch is automatically created when performing the 'git init'. Why is 
this not the case?

Regards

Guido

Hi,

On Sat, 5 May 2007, Guido Ostkamp wrote:

quoted

On Sat, 5 May 2007, Guido Ostkamp wrote:

quoted

$ mkdir test
$ cd test
$ git init
Initialized empty Git repository in .git/
$ git branch experimental
fatal: Not a valid object name: 'master'.

So, it seems it is not possible to create a named branch on an empty
repository.

Actually, it is not possible to branch from a non-existing branch. So,
this is somewhat expected from my POV.

From a git beginners point of view, I would expect that the 'master' 
branch is automatically created when performing the 'git init'. Why is 
this not the case?

Well, one side of the branch _is_ created. But you have to provide initial 
content, to make it a proper branch, from which you can actually branch 
off.

Having said that, and having read Daniels mail, I agree that this 
behaviour should be changed, along with the behaviour of "git checkout -b 
<branch>" in a fresh repo.

It might be the illogical thing, to allow branching of a 
yet-to-be-initialised branch, but it does not hurt either.

Ciao,
Dscho