Git: How to checkout without removing exclusive files from current branch










0















Below is the tree of each branch I have in a git repo



[branch1]
+ boot
- cmdline.txt
- config.txt
+ etc
- fstab

[branch2]
+ etc
- passwd
- shadow
- group


when I checkout branch2, files from branch1 are being removed from worktree and vice versa. How to checkout a branch without removing the exclusive files from the current branch?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    Should probably just merge the 2 branches (maybe onto a third one). Otherwise something based off git diff -p branch1..branch2 | patch should work (am assuming your OS/toolkit has a patch and so forth).

    – Eugen Constantin Dinca
    Nov 13 '18 at 12:43















0















Below is the tree of each branch I have in a git repo



[branch1]
+ boot
- cmdline.txt
- config.txt
+ etc
- fstab

[branch2]
+ etc
- passwd
- shadow
- group


when I checkout branch2, files from branch1 are being removed from worktree and vice versa. How to checkout a branch without removing the exclusive files from the current branch?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    Should probably just merge the 2 branches (maybe onto a third one). Otherwise something based off git diff -p branch1..branch2 | patch should work (am assuming your OS/toolkit has a patch and so forth).

    – Eugen Constantin Dinca
    Nov 13 '18 at 12:43













0












0








0








Below is the tree of each branch I have in a git repo



[branch1]
+ boot
- cmdline.txt
- config.txt
+ etc
- fstab

[branch2]
+ etc
- passwd
- shadow
- group


when I checkout branch2, files from branch1 are being removed from worktree and vice versa. How to checkout a branch without removing the exclusive files from the current branch?










share|improve this question
















Below is the tree of each branch I have in a git repo



[branch1]
+ boot
- cmdline.txt
- config.txt
+ etc
- fstab

[branch2]
+ etc
- passwd
- shadow
- group


when I checkout branch2, files from branch1 are being removed from worktree and vice versa. How to checkout a branch without removing the exclusive files from the current branch?







git






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 13 '18 at 12:42







neckTwi

















asked Nov 13 '18 at 12:29









neckTwineckTwi

82751740




82751740







  • 1





    Should probably just merge the 2 branches (maybe onto a third one). Otherwise something based off git diff -p branch1..branch2 | patch should work (am assuming your OS/toolkit has a patch and so forth).

    – Eugen Constantin Dinca
    Nov 13 '18 at 12:43












  • 1





    Should probably just merge the 2 branches (maybe onto a third one). Otherwise something based off git diff -p branch1..branch2 | patch should work (am assuming your OS/toolkit has a patch and so forth).

    – Eugen Constantin Dinca
    Nov 13 '18 at 12:43







1




1





Should probably just merge the 2 branches (maybe onto a third one). Otherwise something based off git diff -p branch1..branch2 | patch should work (am assuming your OS/toolkit has a patch and so forth).

– Eugen Constantin Dinca
Nov 13 '18 at 12:43





Should probably just merge the 2 branches (maybe onto a third one). Otherwise something based off git diff -p branch1..branch2 | patch should work (am assuming your OS/toolkit has a patch and so forth).

– Eugen Constantin Dinca
Nov 13 '18 at 12:43












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















0














It's a normal feature.



You have to add your files and commit your initial branch:



git add .
git commit -m "hello dev of branch 1"


to go to next branch:



git checkout branch2


And merge your branch1 to branch2:



git merge branch1





share|improve this answer























  • git merge branch1 just says already up to date but no branch1 files are added

    – neckTwi
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:04












  • Copy here all lines of your commands, please. The git merge branch1 have to be typed when you are in the branch2 (by the checkout command). In the branch1 it's normal to get already up to date.

    – phili_b
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:09












  • when I'm in branch2 i did git checkout -b branch3 and then did git merge branch1. but git ls-files show files only from branch2 no files from branch1 are present.

    – neckTwi
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:14












  • now I did git checkout branch1 and git merge branch2. now, git ls-files don't have branch1 files!!

    – neckTwi
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:32











  • Before each checkout or merge you have to commit. Install TortoiseGit and look at its git commands.

    – phili_b
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:27



















0














There isn't an easy way to do what you're describing, because it runs against the grain of git branches.



Branches in git are meant for tracking different lines of evolution of the same content. This isn't to say that it's the only possible use - git is very flexible - but that is the intent, and anything else may or may not be easy to do.



And in particular, switching back and forth between branches that contain different content, to keep the combined content on the work tree, is not something that's easy to do[1].



I recommend you take a step back and look at why you want one branch to have the password files, and another branch to have the boot directory and fstab. Understanding what problem you're trying to solve there, we might be able to suggest an alternative solution to that problem so that you can use git more in tune with its design.



At a bare minimum, to make what you're doing "work" (and I put "work" in quotes, because it's likely to have some quirky side-effects), you would probably want to:



  • On each branch, add the files excluded from that branch to .gitignore

  • Before switching to a branch that includes files not on the current branch, you may have to remove the working copies of those files. (In the simple two-branch example, you might do this with git clean -x, but be aware this would also sweep up any other ignored working tree files - such as build artifacts that would then have to be regenerated.)

  • After switching to a branch that excludes files on the current branch, check those files out from the current branch (git checkout HEAD@1 -- ets/fstab and so on)

Honestly that doesn't sound like much fun for a "might work basically correctly most of the time" solution, which is why I recommend instead looking at why you have different files on different branches.




[1] That may seem weird, if you are used to tools that do use branches in that way. But if you look at the general case of branches as defined by git, you will realize there are good reasons why it doesn't want to make assumptions that would make this "easy".






share|improve this answer























  • I didn't read your answer initially because I didn't understand your lines: because it runs against the grain of git branches, lines of evolution. too dramatic you see? But after I've put my answer I've become curious to understand what you are trying to say; You said the same!

    – neckTwi
    Nov 14 '18 at 3:57












  • @neckTwi - No, in fact I don't see. There is nothing "dramatic" about those phrases, and they are pretty standard in expressing what I'm saying. Also, our answers definitely do not say the same thing, and in fact I think you might want to spend a little time better understanding git's branch model - because, for example, to say that branches have "ancestors" in git is incorrect.

    – Mark Adelsberger
    Nov 15 '18 at 0:43











  • I've corrected my phrase merging an ancestor has no effect. since a new branch being checked out have the same history as the current branch, doesn't it make the current branch an ancestor to the new branch?

    – neckTwi
    Nov 15 '18 at 16:57











  • @neckTwi : No. I wonder if I'm somehow not understanding your question, because it looks as though you just asked me whether something is true, that I had literally just said is not true...

    – Mark Adelsberger
    Nov 15 '18 at 18:23


















-1














Understand how Git works!



By default, every Git branch has an ancestor except the initial master branch which is an ancestor to all other branches. So if any branch has only exclusive files than any other branch then you should have deleted all the files from the branch initially and added some exclusive files to it.



So if the branch1 is an ancestor to branch2 and branch2 don't have the files of branch1 then branch2 is marked to not contain files of branch1. So merging branch1 to branch2 will remove the files of branch1 in branch2. Yes, merging an ancestor has no effect other than updating the changes of the ancestor.



Though one can git checkout --orphan NewOrphan, It can't be merged with another branch with a different history (ancestor).



So the only way to do it is as @EugenConstantinDinca said in the comment. Or rethink what you are trying to achieve by not removing the files of the parent branch.






share|improve this answer
























    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    );
    );
    , "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53281029%2fgit-how-to-checkout-without-removing-exclusive-files-from-current-branch%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0














    It's a normal feature.



    You have to add your files and commit your initial branch:



    git add .
    git commit -m "hello dev of branch 1"


    to go to next branch:



    git checkout branch2


    And merge your branch1 to branch2:



    git merge branch1





    share|improve this answer























    • git merge branch1 just says already up to date but no branch1 files are added

      – neckTwi
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:04












    • Copy here all lines of your commands, please. The git merge branch1 have to be typed when you are in the branch2 (by the checkout command). In the branch1 it's normal to get already up to date.

      – phili_b
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:09












    • when I'm in branch2 i did git checkout -b branch3 and then did git merge branch1. but git ls-files show files only from branch2 no files from branch1 are present.

      – neckTwi
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:14












    • now I did git checkout branch1 and git merge branch2. now, git ls-files don't have branch1 files!!

      – neckTwi
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:32











    • Before each checkout or merge you have to commit. Install TortoiseGit and look at its git commands.

      – phili_b
      Nov 13 '18 at 20:27
















    0














    It's a normal feature.



    You have to add your files and commit your initial branch:



    git add .
    git commit -m "hello dev of branch 1"


    to go to next branch:



    git checkout branch2


    And merge your branch1 to branch2:



    git merge branch1





    share|improve this answer























    • git merge branch1 just says already up to date but no branch1 files are added

      – neckTwi
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:04












    • Copy here all lines of your commands, please. The git merge branch1 have to be typed when you are in the branch2 (by the checkout command). In the branch1 it's normal to get already up to date.

      – phili_b
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:09












    • when I'm in branch2 i did git checkout -b branch3 and then did git merge branch1. but git ls-files show files only from branch2 no files from branch1 are present.

      – neckTwi
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:14












    • now I did git checkout branch1 and git merge branch2. now, git ls-files don't have branch1 files!!

      – neckTwi
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:32











    • Before each checkout or merge you have to commit. Install TortoiseGit and look at its git commands.

      – phili_b
      Nov 13 '18 at 20:27














    0












    0








    0







    It's a normal feature.



    You have to add your files and commit your initial branch:



    git add .
    git commit -m "hello dev of branch 1"


    to go to next branch:



    git checkout branch2


    And merge your branch1 to branch2:



    git merge branch1





    share|improve this answer













    It's a normal feature.



    You have to add your files and commit your initial branch:



    git add .
    git commit -m "hello dev of branch 1"


    to go to next branch:



    git checkout branch2


    And merge your branch1 to branch2:



    git merge branch1






    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Nov 13 '18 at 12:48









    phili_bphili_b

    8611




    8611












    • git merge branch1 just says already up to date but no branch1 files are added

      – neckTwi
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:04












    • Copy here all lines of your commands, please. The git merge branch1 have to be typed when you are in the branch2 (by the checkout command). In the branch1 it's normal to get already up to date.

      – phili_b
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:09












    • when I'm in branch2 i did git checkout -b branch3 and then did git merge branch1. but git ls-files show files only from branch2 no files from branch1 are present.

      – neckTwi
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:14












    • now I did git checkout branch1 and git merge branch2. now, git ls-files don't have branch1 files!!

      – neckTwi
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:32











    • Before each checkout or merge you have to commit. Install TortoiseGit and look at its git commands.

      – phili_b
      Nov 13 '18 at 20:27


















    • git merge branch1 just says already up to date but no branch1 files are added

      – neckTwi
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:04












    • Copy here all lines of your commands, please. The git merge branch1 have to be typed when you are in the branch2 (by the checkout command). In the branch1 it's normal to get already up to date.

      – phili_b
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:09












    • when I'm in branch2 i did git checkout -b branch3 and then did git merge branch1. but git ls-files show files only from branch2 no files from branch1 are present.

      – neckTwi
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:14












    • now I did git checkout branch1 and git merge branch2. now, git ls-files don't have branch1 files!!

      – neckTwi
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:32











    • Before each checkout or merge you have to commit. Install TortoiseGit and look at its git commands.

      – phili_b
      Nov 13 '18 at 20:27

















    git merge branch1 just says already up to date but no branch1 files are added

    – neckTwi
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:04






    git merge branch1 just says already up to date but no branch1 files are added

    – neckTwi
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:04














    Copy here all lines of your commands, please. The git merge branch1 have to be typed when you are in the branch2 (by the checkout command). In the branch1 it's normal to get already up to date.

    – phili_b
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:09






    Copy here all lines of your commands, please. The git merge branch1 have to be typed when you are in the branch2 (by the checkout command). In the branch1 it's normal to get already up to date.

    – phili_b
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:09














    when I'm in branch2 i did git checkout -b branch3 and then did git merge branch1. but git ls-files show files only from branch2 no files from branch1 are present.

    – neckTwi
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:14






    when I'm in branch2 i did git checkout -b branch3 and then did git merge branch1. but git ls-files show files only from branch2 no files from branch1 are present.

    – neckTwi
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:14














    now I did git checkout branch1 and git merge branch2. now, git ls-files don't have branch1 files!!

    – neckTwi
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:32





    now I did git checkout branch1 and git merge branch2. now, git ls-files don't have branch1 files!!

    – neckTwi
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:32













    Before each checkout or merge you have to commit. Install TortoiseGit and look at its git commands.

    – phili_b
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:27






    Before each checkout or merge you have to commit. Install TortoiseGit and look at its git commands.

    – phili_b
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:27














    0














    There isn't an easy way to do what you're describing, because it runs against the grain of git branches.



    Branches in git are meant for tracking different lines of evolution of the same content. This isn't to say that it's the only possible use - git is very flexible - but that is the intent, and anything else may or may not be easy to do.



    And in particular, switching back and forth between branches that contain different content, to keep the combined content on the work tree, is not something that's easy to do[1].



    I recommend you take a step back and look at why you want one branch to have the password files, and another branch to have the boot directory and fstab. Understanding what problem you're trying to solve there, we might be able to suggest an alternative solution to that problem so that you can use git more in tune with its design.



    At a bare minimum, to make what you're doing "work" (and I put "work" in quotes, because it's likely to have some quirky side-effects), you would probably want to:



    • On each branch, add the files excluded from that branch to .gitignore

    • Before switching to a branch that includes files not on the current branch, you may have to remove the working copies of those files. (In the simple two-branch example, you might do this with git clean -x, but be aware this would also sweep up any other ignored working tree files - such as build artifacts that would then have to be regenerated.)

    • After switching to a branch that excludes files on the current branch, check those files out from the current branch (git checkout HEAD@1 -- ets/fstab and so on)

    Honestly that doesn't sound like much fun for a "might work basically correctly most of the time" solution, which is why I recommend instead looking at why you have different files on different branches.




    [1] That may seem weird, if you are used to tools that do use branches in that way. But if you look at the general case of branches as defined by git, you will realize there are good reasons why it doesn't want to make assumptions that would make this "easy".






    share|improve this answer























    • I didn't read your answer initially because I didn't understand your lines: because it runs against the grain of git branches, lines of evolution. too dramatic you see? But after I've put my answer I've become curious to understand what you are trying to say; You said the same!

      – neckTwi
      Nov 14 '18 at 3:57












    • @neckTwi - No, in fact I don't see. There is nothing "dramatic" about those phrases, and they are pretty standard in expressing what I'm saying. Also, our answers definitely do not say the same thing, and in fact I think you might want to spend a little time better understanding git's branch model - because, for example, to say that branches have "ancestors" in git is incorrect.

      – Mark Adelsberger
      Nov 15 '18 at 0:43











    • I've corrected my phrase merging an ancestor has no effect. since a new branch being checked out have the same history as the current branch, doesn't it make the current branch an ancestor to the new branch?

      – neckTwi
      Nov 15 '18 at 16:57











    • @neckTwi : No. I wonder if I'm somehow not understanding your question, because it looks as though you just asked me whether something is true, that I had literally just said is not true...

      – Mark Adelsberger
      Nov 15 '18 at 18:23















    0














    There isn't an easy way to do what you're describing, because it runs against the grain of git branches.



    Branches in git are meant for tracking different lines of evolution of the same content. This isn't to say that it's the only possible use - git is very flexible - but that is the intent, and anything else may or may not be easy to do.



    And in particular, switching back and forth between branches that contain different content, to keep the combined content on the work tree, is not something that's easy to do[1].



    I recommend you take a step back and look at why you want one branch to have the password files, and another branch to have the boot directory and fstab. Understanding what problem you're trying to solve there, we might be able to suggest an alternative solution to that problem so that you can use git more in tune with its design.



    At a bare minimum, to make what you're doing "work" (and I put "work" in quotes, because it's likely to have some quirky side-effects), you would probably want to:



    • On each branch, add the files excluded from that branch to .gitignore

    • Before switching to a branch that includes files not on the current branch, you may have to remove the working copies of those files. (In the simple two-branch example, you might do this with git clean -x, but be aware this would also sweep up any other ignored working tree files - such as build artifacts that would then have to be regenerated.)

    • After switching to a branch that excludes files on the current branch, check those files out from the current branch (git checkout HEAD@1 -- ets/fstab and so on)

    Honestly that doesn't sound like much fun for a "might work basically correctly most of the time" solution, which is why I recommend instead looking at why you have different files on different branches.




    [1] That may seem weird, if you are used to tools that do use branches in that way. But if you look at the general case of branches as defined by git, you will realize there are good reasons why it doesn't want to make assumptions that would make this "easy".






    share|improve this answer























    • I didn't read your answer initially because I didn't understand your lines: because it runs against the grain of git branches, lines of evolution. too dramatic you see? But after I've put my answer I've become curious to understand what you are trying to say; You said the same!

      – neckTwi
      Nov 14 '18 at 3:57












    • @neckTwi - No, in fact I don't see. There is nothing "dramatic" about those phrases, and they are pretty standard in expressing what I'm saying. Also, our answers definitely do not say the same thing, and in fact I think you might want to spend a little time better understanding git's branch model - because, for example, to say that branches have "ancestors" in git is incorrect.

      – Mark Adelsberger
      Nov 15 '18 at 0:43











    • I've corrected my phrase merging an ancestor has no effect. since a new branch being checked out have the same history as the current branch, doesn't it make the current branch an ancestor to the new branch?

      – neckTwi
      Nov 15 '18 at 16:57











    • @neckTwi : No. I wonder if I'm somehow not understanding your question, because it looks as though you just asked me whether something is true, that I had literally just said is not true...

      – Mark Adelsberger
      Nov 15 '18 at 18:23













    0












    0








    0







    There isn't an easy way to do what you're describing, because it runs against the grain of git branches.



    Branches in git are meant for tracking different lines of evolution of the same content. This isn't to say that it's the only possible use - git is very flexible - but that is the intent, and anything else may or may not be easy to do.



    And in particular, switching back and forth between branches that contain different content, to keep the combined content on the work tree, is not something that's easy to do[1].



    I recommend you take a step back and look at why you want one branch to have the password files, and another branch to have the boot directory and fstab. Understanding what problem you're trying to solve there, we might be able to suggest an alternative solution to that problem so that you can use git more in tune with its design.



    At a bare minimum, to make what you're doing "work" (and I put "work" in quotes, because it's likely to have some quirky side-effects), you would probably want to:



    • On each branch, add the files excluded from that branch to .gitignore

    • Before switching to a branch that includes files not on the current branch, you may have to remove the working copies of those files. (In the simple two-branch example, you might do this with git clean -x, but be aware this would also sweep up any other ignored working tree files - such as build artifacts that would then have to be regenerated.)

    • After switching to a branch that excludes files on the current branch, check those files out from the current branch (git checkout HEAD@1 -- ets/fstab and so on)

    Honestly that doesn't sound like much fun for a "might work basically correctly most of the time" solution, which is why I recommend instead looking at why you have different files on different branches.




    [1] That may seem weird, if you are used to tools that do use branches in that way. But if you look at the general case of branches as defined by git, you will realize there are good reasons why it doesn't want to make assumptions that would make this "easy".






    share|improve this answer













    There isn't an easy way to do what you're describing, because it runs against the grain of git branches.



    Branches in git are meant for tracking different lines of evolution of the same content. This isn't to say that it's the only possible use - git is very flexible - but that is the intent, and anything else may or may not be easy to do.



    And in particular, switching back and forth between branches that contain different content, to keep the combined content on the work tree, is not something that's easy to do[1].



    I recommend you take a step back and look at why you want one branch to have the password files, and another branch to have the boot directory and fstab. Understanding what problem you're trying to solve there, we might be able to suggest an alternative solution to that problem so that you can use git more in tune with its design.



    At a bare minimum, to make what you're doing "work" (and I put "work" in quotes, because it's likely to have some quirky side-effects), you would probably want to:



    • On each branch, add the files excluded from that branch to .gitignore

    • Before switching to a branch that includes files not on the current branch, you may have to remove the working copies of those files. (In the simple two-branch example, you might do this with git clean -x, but be aware this would also sweep up any other ignored working tree files - such as build artifacts that would then have to be regenerated.)

    • After switching to a branch that excludes files on the current branch, check those files out from the current branch (git checkout HEAD@1 -- ets/fstab and so on)

    Honestly that doesn't sound like much fun for a "might work basically correctly most of the time" solution, which is why I recommend instead looking at why you have different files on different branches.




    [1] That may seem weird, if you are used to tools that do use branches in that way. But if you look at the general case of branches as defined by git, you will realize there are good reasons why it doesn't want to make assumptions that would make this "easy".







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Nov 13 '18 at 16:51









    Mark AdelsbergerMark Adelsberger

    21.1k11321




    21.1k11321












    • I didn't read your answer initially because I didn't understand your lines: because it runs against the grain of git branches, lines of evolution. too dramatic you see? But after I've put my answer I've become curious to understand what you are trying to say; You said the same!

      – neckTwi
      Nov 14 '18 at 3:57












    • @neckTwi - No, in fact I don't see. There is nothing "dramatic" about those phrases, and they are pretty standard in expressing what I'm saying. Also, our answers definitely do not say the same thing, and in fact I think you might want to spend a little time better understanding git's branch model - because, for example, to say that branches have "ancestors" in git is incorrect.

      – Mark Adelsberger
      Nov 15 '18 at 0:43











    • I've corrected my phrase merging an ancestor has no effect. since a new branch being checked out have the same history as the current branch, doesn't it make the current branch an ancestor to the new branch?

      – neckTwi
      Nov 15 '18 at 16:57











    • @neckTwi : No. I wonder if I'm somehow not understanding your question, because it looks as though you just asked me whether something is true, that I had literally just said is not true...

      – Mark Adelsberger
      Nov 15 '18 at 18:23

















    • I didn't read your answer initially because I didn't understand your lines: because it runs against the grain of git branches, lines of evolution. too dramatic you see? But after I've put my answer I've become curious to understand what you are trying to say; You said the same!

      – neckTwi
      Nov 14 '18 at 3:57












    • @neckTwi - No, in fact I don't see. There is nothing "dramatic" about those phrases, and they are pretty standard in expressing what I'm saying. Also, our answers definitely do not say the same thing, and in fact I think you might want to spend a little time better understanding git's branch model - because, for example, to say that branches have "ancestors" in git is incorrect.

      – Mark Adelsberger
      Nov 15 '18 at 0:43











    • I've corrected my phrase merging an ancestor has no effect. since a new branch being checked out have the same history as the current branch, doesn't it make the current branch an ancestor to the new branch?

      – neckTwi
      Nov 15 '18 at 16:57











    • @neckTwi : No. I wonder if I'm somehow not understanding your question, because it looks as though you just asked me whether something is true, that I had literally just said is not true...

      – Mark Adelsberger
      Nov 15 '18 at 18:23
















    I didn't read your answer initially because I didn't understand your lines: because it runs against the grain of git branches, lines of evolution. too dramatic you see? But after I've put my answer I've become curious to understand what you are trying to say; You said the same!

    – neckTwi
    Nov 14 '18 at 3:57






    I didn't read your answer initially because I didn't understand your lines: because it runs against the grain of git branches, lines of evolution. too dramatic you see? But after I've put my answer I've become curious to understand what you are trying to say; You said the same!

    – neckTwi
    Nov 14 '18 at 3:57














    @neckTwi - No, in fact I don't see. There is nothing "dramatic" about those phrases, and they are pretty standard in expressing what I'm saying. Also, our answers definitely do not say the same thing, and in fact I think you might want to spend a little time better understanding git's branch model - because, for example, to say that branches have "ancestors" in git is incorrect.

    – Mark Adelsberger
    Nov 15 '18 at 0:43





    @neckTwi - No, in fact I don't see. There is nothing "dramatic" about those phrases, and they are pretty standard in expressing what I'm saying. Also, our answers definitely do not say the same thing, and in fact I think you might want to spend a little time better understanding git's branch model - because, for example, to say that branches have "ancestors" in git is incorrect.

    – Mark Adelsberger
    Nov 15 '18 at 0:43













    I've corrected my phrase merging an ancestor has no effect. since a new branch being checked out have the same history as the current branch, doesn't it make the current branch an ancestor to the new branch?

    – neckTwi
    Nov 15 '18 at 16:57





    I've corrected my phrase merging an ancestor has no effect. since a new branch being checked out have the same history as the current branch, doesn't it make the current branch an ancestor to the new branch?

    – neckTwi
    Nov 15 '18 at 16:57













    @neckTwi : No. I wonder if I'm somehow not understanding your question, because it looks as though you just asked me whether something is true, that I had literally just said is not true...

    – Mark Adelsberger
    Nov 15 '18 at 18:23





    @neckTwi : No. I wonder if I'm somehow not understanding your question, because it looks as though you just asked me whether something is true, that I had literally just said is not true...

    – Mark Adelsberger
    Nov 15 '18 at 18:23











    -1














    Understand how Git works!



    By default, every Git branch has an ancestor except the initial master branch which is an ancestor to all other branches. So if any branch has only exclusive files than any other branch then you should have deleted all the files from the branch initially and added some exclusive files to it.



    So if the branch1 is an ancestor to branch2 and branch2 don't have the files of branch1 then branch2 is marked to not contain files of branch1. So merging branch1 to branch2 will remove the files of branch1 in branch2. Yes, merging an ancestor has no effect other than updating the changes of the ancestor.



    Though one can git checkout --orphan NewOrphan, It can't be merged with another branch with a different history (ancestor).



    So the only way to do it is as @EugenConstantinDinca said in the comment. Or rethink what you are trying to achieve by not removing the files of the parent branch.






    share|improve this answer





























      -1














      Understand how Git works!



      By default, every Git branch has an ancestor except the initial master branch which is an ancestor to all other branches. So if any branch has only exclusive files than any other branch then you should have deleted all the files from the branch initially and added some exclusive files to it.



      So if the branch1 is an ancestor to branch2 and branch2 don't have the files of branch1 then branch2 is marked to not contain files of branch1. So merging branch1 to branch2 will remove the files of branch1 in branch2. Yes, merging an ancestor has no effect other than updating the changes of the ancestor.



      Though one can git checkout --orphan NewOrphan, It can't be merged with another branch with a different history (ancestor).



      So the only way to do it is as @EugenConstantinDinca said in the comment. Or rethink what you are trying to achieve by not removing the files of the parent branch.






      share|improve this answer



























        -1












        -1








        -1







        Understand how Git works!



        By default, every Git branch has an ancestor except the initial master branch which is an ancestor to all other branches. So if any branch has only exclusive files than any other branch then you should have deleted all the files from the branch initially and added some exclusive files to it.



        So if the branch1 is an ancestor to branch2 and branch2 don't have the files of branch1 then branch2 is marked to not contain files of branch1. So merging branch1 to branch2 will remove the files of branch1 in branch2. Yes, merging an ancestor has no effect other than updating the changes of the ancestor.



        Though one can git checkout --orphan NewOrphan, It can't be merged with another branch with a different history (ancestor).



        So the only way to do it is as @EugenConstantinDinca said in the comment. Or rethink what you are trying to achieve by not removing the files of the parent branch.






        share|improve this answer















        Understand how Git works!



        By default, every Git branch has an ancestor except the initial master branch which is an ancestor to all other branches. So if any branch has only exclusive files than any other branch then you should have deleted all the files from the branch initially and added some exclusive files to it.



        So if the branch1 is an ancestor to branch2 and branch2 don't have the files of branch1 then branch2 is marked to not contain files of branch1. So merging branch1 to branch2 will remove the files of branch1 in branch2. Yes, merging an ancestor has no effect other than updating the changes of the ancestor.



        Though one can git checkout --orphan NewOrphan, It can't be merged with another branch with a different history (ancestor).



        So the only way to do it is as @EugenConstantinDinca said in the comment. Or rethink what you are trying to achieve by not removing the files of the parent branch.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Nov 15 '18 at 16:35

























        answered Nov 14 '18 at 3:33









        neckTwineckTwi

        82751740




        82751740



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53281029%2fgit-how-to-checkout-without-removing-exclusive-files-from-current-branch%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Darth Vader #20

            How to how show current date and time by default on contact form 7 in WordPress without taking input from user in datetimepicker

            Ondo