3 ms·
> Also exploratory branches where any nonsense may go on (that may end up being merged, at least partially!). Also test/development vs. production branches! One
by Filligree 4y ago
> Also exploratory branches where any nonsense may go on (that may end up being merged, at least partially!). Also test/development vs. production branches! One may be broken, the production branch should ideally never be in a state that cannot be deployed.
Well, why don't you simply copy the code into a new directory and commit that? Then you can do whatever you want in the scratch directory.
- bigDinosaur 4y agoTo me that seems messier than a new branch. For one, how are others to know my files are test/scratch/feature branch files? I'd have to use a naming scheme, and some kind of other signal to make sure nobody imports them before they're ready or mistakes them for deployable files - and at that point I'm just replicating a branch!
- enriquto 4y ago> and at that point I'm just replicating a branch! Yes. My entire point is that you can always replicate branches with actual, explicit files, and that this is a good thing to do because files are (very often) better than branches. Files plus some editor discipline are essentially equivalent to branches. Files+discipline are better than branches, according to standard unix philosophy: (1) everything is a file, (2) protocol not policy.