Subject: Re: New orphan worktree?

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 14:15:52 -0800

Jim Hill <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 1:32 PM Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> a need to have multiple unrelated line of histories in a single
>> repository may not be there, even though a desire to do so might
>> exist.  What is done with these unrelated histories that record
>> unrelated contents [*1*]?
>
> Git itself is an example of other reasons for carrying disjoint dags as a
> set of related histories.

Thanks, it is a good example why a repository may want to have
unrelated histories stored in it, but it is not a good example to
support the use of the "--orphan" option.

Histories for gitk, git-gui and todo come from different local
repositories.  gitk and git-gui histories come to my (local)
repository by pulling from separate repositories that have only
unrelated histories, and the todo branch does not exist even in my
local repository working on git codebase.

You see git, gitk, git-gui histories in a single repository but
these independent histories originate from and worked on each
separate repositories.  You see the todo history in the same
repository as these other three lines, only because I used to have
just a single publishing repository I can push into at kernel.org.

And none of the management above has any need to use "--orphan".

"gitk" and "git-gui" are worked in their own repositories, that do
not even have any commits of "git" history.  "todo" is worked in its
own repository, that do not even have any commits of "git" history.
The former two are pulled into my "git" repository and pushed out to
the public repositories.  The last one is pushed directly from my
"git-todo" repository and pushed out.