Finding a branch point with Git

Question

I have a repository with branches master and A and lots of merge activity between the two  How can I find the commit in my repository when branch A was created based on master   My repository basically looks like this   -- X -- A -- B -- C -- D -- F   master                                                                       G -- H -- I -- J   branch A    I m looking for revision A  which is not what git merge-base  --all  finds

User · Answer

You could use the following command to return the oldest commit in branch_a, which is not reachable from master:

git rev-list branch_a ^master | tail -1

Perhaps with an additional sanity check that the parent of that commit is actually reachable from master...

User · Answer

Here s an improved version of my previous answer previous answer  It relies on the commit messages from merges to find where the branch was first created   It works on all the repositories mentioned here  and I ve even addressed some tricky ones that spawned on the mailing list  I also wrote tests for this   find merge          local selection extra     test   2   amp  amp  extra   into  2      git rev-list --min-parents 2 --grep  Merge branch   1  extra  --topo-order   3 ---all    tail -1    branch point          local first merge second merge merge     first merge   find merge  1      1  2       second merge   find merge  2  1  first merge      merge   second merge - first merge       if     merge     then         git merge-base  merge 1  merge 2     else         git merge-base  1  2     fi

User · Answer

A simple way to just make it easier to see the branching point in git log --graph is to use the option --first-parent   For example  take the repo from the accepted answer     git log --all --oneline --decorate --graph      a9546a2  HEAD - gt  master  origin master  origin HEAD  merge from topic back to master            648ca35  origin topic  merging master onto topic              132ee2a first commit on topic branch       e7c863d commit on master after master was merged to topic                   37ad159 post-branch commit on master        6aafd7f second commit on master before branching   4112403 initial commit on master   Now add --first-parent     git log --all --oneline --decorate --graph --first-parent    a9546a2  HEAD - gt  master  origin master  origin HEAD  merge from topic back to master     648ca35  origin topic  merging master onto topic     132ee2a first commit on topic branch     e7c863d commit on master after master was merged to topic     37ad159 post-branch commit on master        6aafd7f second commit on master before branching   4112403 initial commit on master   That makes it easier   Note if the repo has lots of branches you re going to want to specify the 2 branches you re comparing instead of using --all     git log --decorate --oneline --graph --first-parent master origin topic

User · Answer

I seem to be getting some joy with  git rev-list branch   master   The last line you get is the first commit on the branch  so then it s a matter of getting the parent of that  So  git rev-list -1  git rev-list branch   master   tail -1     Seems to work for me and doesn t need diffs and so on  which is helpful as we don t have that version of diff   Correction  This doesn t work if you are on the master branch  but I m doing this in a script so that s less of an issue

User · Answer

If you like terse commands   git rev-list   git rev-list --first-parent  branch name master   tail -n1       Here s an explanation   The following command gives you the list of all commits in master that occurred after branch name was created  git rev-list --first-parent  branch name master   Since you only care about the earliest of those commits you want the last line of the output   git rev-list  branch name --first-parent master   tail -n1  The parent of the earliest commit that s not an ancestor of  branch name  is  by definition  in  branch name   and is in  master  since it s an ancestor of something in  master   So you ve got the earliest commit that s in both branches   The command  git rev-list commit     is just a way to show the parent commit reference  You could use  git log -1 commit   or whatever   PS  I disagree with the argument that ancestor order is irrelevant  It depends on what you want  For example  in this case    C1   C2        master          XXXXX  branch A  the Xs denote arbitrary cross-overs between master and A             branch B   it makes perfect sense to output C2 as the  branching  commit  This is when the developer branched out from  master   When he branched  branch  B  wasn t even merged in his branch  This is what the solution in this post gives   If what you want is the last commit C such that all paths from origin to the last commit on branch  A  go through C  then you want to ignore ancestry order  That s purely topological and gives you an idea of since when you have two versions of the code going at the same time  That s when you d go with merge-base based approaches  and it will return C1 in my example

User · Answer

In general  this is not possible  In a branch history a branch-and-merge before a named branch was branched off and an intermediate branch of two named branches look the same   In git  branches are just the current names of the tips of sections of history  They don t really have a strong identity   This isn t usually a big issue as the merge-base  see Greg Hewgill s answer  of two commits is usually much more useful  giving the most recent commit which the two branches shared   A solution relying on the order of parents of a commit obviously won t work in situations where a branch has been fully integrated at some point in the branch s history   git commit --allow-empty -m root   actual branch commit git checkout -b branch A git commit --allow-empty -m   branch A commit  git checkout master git commit --allow-empty -m  More work on master  git merge -m  Merge branch A into master  branch A   identified as branch point git checkout branch A git merge --ff-only master git commit --allow-empty -m  More work on branch A  git checkout master git commit --allow-empty -m  More work on master    This technique also falls down if an integration merge has been made with the parents reversed  e g  a temporary branch was used to perform a test merge into master and then fast-forwarded into the feature branch to build on further    git commit --allow-empty -m root   actual branch point git checkout -b branch A git commit --allow-empty -m   branch A commit  git checkout master git commit --allow-empty -m  More work on master  git merge -m  Merge branch A into master  branch A   identified as branch point git checkout branch A git commit --allow-empty -m  More work on branch A   git checkout -b tmp-branch master git merge -m  Merge branch A into tmp-branch  master copy   branch A git checkout branch A git merge --ff-only tmp-branch git branch -d tmp-branch  git checkout master git commit --allow-empty -m  More work on master

User · Answer

To find commits from the branching point  you could use this   git log --ancestry-path master  topicbranch

User · Answer

I was looking for the same thing  and I found this question   Thank you for asking it   However  I found that the answers I see here don t seem to quite give the answer you asked for  or that I was looking for  -- they seem to give the G commit  instead of the A commit   So  I ve created the following tree  letters assigned in chronological order   so I could test things out   A - B - D - F - G    lt -  master  branch  at G                         C - E --       lt -  topic  branch  still at E    This looks a little different than yours  because I wanted to make sure that I got  referring to this graph  not yours  B  but not A  and not D or E    Here are the letters attached to SHA prefixes and commit messages  my repo can be cloned from here  if that s interesting to anyone    G  a9546a2 merge from topic back to master F  e7c863d commit on master after master was merged to topic E  648ca35 merging master onto topic D  37ad159 post-branch commit on master C  132ee2a first commit on topic branch B  6aafd7f second commit on master before branching A  4112403 initial commit on master   So  the goal  find B   Here are three ways that I found  after a bit of tinkering     1  visually  with gitk   You should visually see a tree like this  as viewed from master      or here  as viewed from topic      in both cases  I ve selected the commit that is B in my graph   Once you click on it  its full SHA is presented in a text input field just below the graph     2  visually  but from the terminal   git log --graph --oneline --all   Edit side-note  adding --decorate can also be interesting  it adds an indication of branch names  tags  etc   Not adding this to the command-line above since the output below doesn t reflect its use    which shows  assuming git config --global color ui auto      Or  in straight text        a9546a2 merge from topic back to master            648ca35 merging master onto topic              132ee2a first commit on topic branch       e7c863d commit on master after master was merged to topic                   37ad159 post-branch commit on master        6aafd7f second commit on master before branching   4112403 initial commit on master   in either case  we see the 6aafd7f commit as the lowest common point  i e  B in my graph  or A in yours     3  With shell magic   You don t specify in your question whether you wanted something like the above  or a single command that ll just get you the one revision  and nothing else   Well  here s the latter   diff -u  lt  git rev-list --first-parent topic                  lt  git rev-list --first-parent master           sed -ne  s     p    head -1 6aafd7ff98017c816033df18395c5c1e7829960d   Which you can also put into your    gitconfig as  note  trailing dash is important  thanks Brian for bringing attention to that     alias      oldest-ancestor    zsh -c  diff -u  lt  git rev-list --first-parent    1 -master     lt  git rev-list --first-parent    2 -HEAD      sed -ne   s     p     head -1  -   Which could be done via the following  convoluted with quoting  command-line   git config --global alias oldest-ancestor   zsh -c     diff -u  lt  git rev-list --first-parent    1 -master     lt  git rev-list --first-parent    2 -HEAD      sed -ne  s     p    head -1     -    Note  zsh could just as easily have been bash  but sh will not work -- the  lt    syntax doesn t exist in vanilla sh    Thank you again   conny  for making me aware of it in a comment on another answer on this page    Note  Alternate version of the above   Thanks to liori for pointing out that the above could fall down when comparing identical branches  and coming up with an alternate diff form which removes the sed form from the mix  and makes this  safer   i e  it returns a result  namely  the most recent commit  even when you compare master to master    As a  git-config line    alias      oldest-ancestor    zsh -c  diff --old-line-format    --new-line-format     lt  git rev-list --first-parent    1 -master     lt  git rev-list --first-parent    2 -HEAD      head -1  -   From the shell   git config --global alias oldest-ancestor   zsh -c     diff --old-line-format    --new-line-format     lt  git rev-list --first-parent    1 -master     lt  git rev-list --first-parent    2 -HEAD      head -1     -    So  in my test tree  which was unavailable for a while  sorry  it s back   that now works on both master and topic  giving commits G and B  respectively    Thanks again  liori  for the alternate form     So  that s what I  and liori  came up with   It seems to work for me   It also allows an additional couple of aliases that might prove handy   git config --global alias branchdiff   sh -c  git diff  git oldest-ancestor      git config --global alias branchlog   sh -c  git log  git oldest-ancestor        Happy git-ing

User · Answer

I recently needed to solve this problem as well and ended up writing a Ruby script for this  https   github com vaneyckt git-find-branching-point

User · Answer

Not quite a solution to the question but I thought it was worth noting the the approach I use when I have a long-living branch   At the same time I create the branch  I also create a tag with the same name but with an -init suffix  for example feature-branch and feature-branch-init    It is kind of bizarre that this is such a hard question to answer

User · Answer

The following implements git equivalent of svn log --stop-on-copy and can also be used to find branch origin   Approach   Get head for all branches collect mergeBase for target branch each other branch git log and iterate Stop at first commit that appears in the mergeBase list   Like all rivers run to the sea  all branches run to master and therefore we find merge-base between seemingly unrelated branches   As we walk back from branch head through ancestors  we can stop at the first potential merge base since in theory it should be origin point of this branch   Notes   I haven t tried this approach where sibling and cousin branches merged between each other  I know there must be a better solution    details  https   stackoverflow com a 35353202 9950

User · Answer

surely I m missing something  but IMO  all the problems above are caused because we are always trying to find the branch point going back in the history  and that causes all sort of problems because of the merging combinations available   Instead  I ve followed a different approach  based in the fact that both branches share a lot of history  exactly all the history before branching is 100  the same  so instead of going back  my proposal is about going forward  from 1st commit   looking for the 1st difference in both branches  The branch point will be  simply  the parent of the first difference found   In practice      bin bash diff  lt   git rev-list    1 -master   --reverse --topo-order           lt   git rev-list    2 -HEAD   --reverse --topo-order    --unified 1   sed -ne  s     p    head -1   And it s solving all my usual cases  Sure there are border ones not covered but    ciao  -

User · Answer

After a lot of research and discussions  it s clear there s no magic bullet that would work in all situations  at least not in the current version of Git   That s why I wrote a couple of patches that add the concept of a tail branch  Each time a branch is created  a pointer to the original point is created too  the tail ref  This ref gets updated every time the branch is rebased   To find out the branch point of the devel branch  all you have to do is use devel  tail   that s it   https   github com felipec git commits fc tail

User · Answer

The following command will reveal the SHA1 of Commit A  git merge-base --fork-point A

User · Answer

You can examine the reflog of branch A to find from which commit it was created  as well as the full history of which commits that branch pointed to  Reflogs are in  git logs

User · Answer

I believe I ve found a way that deals with all the corner-cases mentioned here   branch branch A merge   git rev-list --min-parents 2 --grep  Merge   branch  --all   tail -1  git merge-base  merge 1  merge 2   Charles Bailey is quite right that solutions based on the order of ancestors have only limited value  at the end of the day you need some sort of record of  this commit came from branch X   but such record already exists  by default  git merge  would use a commit message such as  Merge branch  branch A  into master   this tells you that all the commits from the second parent  commit 2  came from  branch A  and was merged to the first parent  commit 1   which is  master    Armed with this information you can find the first merge of  branch A   which is when  branch A  really came into existence   and find the merge-base  which would be the branch point     I ve tried with the repositories of Mark Booth and Charles Bailey and the solution works  how couldn t it  The only way this wouldn t work is if you have manually changed the default commit message for merges so that the branch information is truly lost   For usefulness    alias      branch-point    sh -c  merge   git rev-list --min-parents 2 --grep  Merge   1  --all   tail -1   amp  amp  git merge-base  merge 1  merge 2    Then you can do  git branch-point branch A    Enjoy

User · Answer

The problem appears to be to find the most recent  single-commit cut between both branches on one side  and the earliest common ancestor on the other  probably the initial commit of the repo   This matches my intuition of what the  branching off  point is   That in mind  this is not at all easy to compute with normal git shell commands  since git rev-list -- our most powerful tool -- doesn t let us restrict the path by which a commit is reached   The closest we have is git rev-list --boundary  which can give us a set of all the commits that  blocked our way    Note  git rev-list --ancestry-path is interesting but I don t how to make it useful here    Here is the script  https   gist github com abortz d464c88923c520b79e3d  It s relatively simple  but due to a loop it s complicated enough to warrant a gist   Note that most other solutions proposed here can t possibly work in all situations for a simple reason  git rev-list --first-parent isn t reliable in linearizing history because there can be merges with either ordering   git rev-list --topo-order  on the other hand  is very useful -- for walking commits in topographic order -- but doing diffs is brittle  there are multiple possible topographic orderings for a given graph  so you are depending on a certain stability of the orderings  That said  strongk7 s solution probably works damn well most of the time  However it s slower that mine as a result of having to walk the entire history of the repo    twice   -

User · Answer

Sometimes it is effectively impossible  with some exceptions of where you might be lucky to have additional data  and the solutions here wont work   Git doesn t preserve ref history  which includes branches   It only stores the current position for each branch  the head   This means you can lose some branch history in git over time  Whenever you branch for example  it s immediately lost which branch was the original one  All a branch does is   git checkout branch1      refs branch1 - gt  commit1 git checkout -b branch2   branch2 - gt  commit1   You might assume that the first commited to is the branch  This tends to be the case but it s not always so  There s nothing stopping you from commiting to either branch first after the above operation  Additionally  git timestamps aren t guaranteed to be reliable  It s not until you commit to both that they truly become branches structurally   While in diagrams we tend to number commits conceptually  git has no real stable concept of sequence when the commit tree branches  In this case you can assume the numbers  indicating order  are determined by timestamp  it might be fun to see how a git UI handles things when you set all the timestamps to the same    This is what a human expect conceptually   After branch         C1  B1              -                C1  B2  After first commit         C1  B1              -                 C1 - C2  B2    This is what you actually get   After branch      - C1  B1   B2  After first commit  human       - C1  B1                     C2  B2  After first commit  real       - C1  B1  - C2  B2    You would assume B1 to be the original branch but it could infact simply be a dead branch  someone did checkout -b but never committed to it   It s not until you commit to both that you get a legitimate branch structure within git   Either          - C2  B1      -- C1         - C3  B2  Or          - C3  B1      -- C1         - C2  B2    You always know that C1 came before C2 and C3 but you never reliably know if C2 came before C3 or C3 came before C2  because you can set the time on your workstation to anything for example   B1 and B2 is also misleading as you can t know which branch came first  You can make a very good and usually accurate guess at it in many cases  It is a bit like a race track  All things generally being equal with the cars then you can assume that a car that comes in a lap behind started a lap behind  We also have conventions that are very reliable  for example master will nearly always represent the longest lived branches although sadly I have seen cases where even this is not the case   The example given here is a history preserving example   Human      - X - A - B - C - D - F  B1                                         G - H ----- I - J  B2  Real              B ----- C - D - F  B1                                   - X - A                                                        G - H ----- I - J  B2    Real here is also misleading because we as humans read it left to right  root to leaf  ref   Git does not do that  Where we do  A- B  in our heads git does  A lt -B or B- A   It reads it from ref to root  Refs can be anywhere but tend to be leafs  at least for active branches  A ref points to a commit and commits only contain a like to their parent s  not to their children  When a commit is a merge commit it will have more than one parent  The first parent is always the original commit that was merged into  The other parents are always commits that were merged into the original commit   Paths      F- gt  D- gt  C- gt  B- gt  A- gt X    H- gt  G- gt  A- gt X       I- gt  H- gt  G- gt  A- gt X     C- gt  B- gt  A- gt X    H- gt  G- gt  A- gt X          J- gt  I- gt  H- gt  G- gt  A- gt X     C- gt  B- gt  A- gt X    H- gt  G- gt  A- gt X        This is not a very efficient representation  rather an expression of all the paths git can take from each ref  B1 and B2    Git s internal storage looks more like this  not that A as a parent appears twice        F- gt D I   D- gt C   C- gt B H   B- gt A   A- gt X   J- gt I   I- gt H C   H- gt G   G- gt A   If you dump a raw git commit you ll see zero or more parent fields  If there are zero  it means no parent and the commit is a root  you can actually have multiple roots   If there s one  it means there was no merge and it s not a root commit  If there is more than one it means that the commit is the result of a merge and all of the parents after the first are merge commits   Paths simplified      F- gt  D- gt C  I   J- gt I   I- gt H C   C- gt  B- gt A  H   H- gt  G- gt A    A- gt X Paths first parents only      F- gt  D- gt  C- gt  B- gt  A- gt X       F- gt D- gt C- gt B- gt A- gt X     J- gt  I- gt  H- gt  G- gt  A- gt X      J- gt I- gt H- gt G- gt A- gt X Or      F- gt D- gt C   J- gt I   I- gt H   C- gt B- gt A   H- gt G- gt A   A- gt X Paths first parents only simplified      F- gt D- gt C- gt B- gt A   J- gt I- gt - gt G- gt A   A- gt X Topological      - X - A - B - C - D - F  B1                           G - H - I - J  B2    When both hit A their chain will be the same  before that their chain will be entirely different  The first commit another two commits have in common is the common ancestor and from whence they diverged  there might be some confusion here between the terms commit  branch and ref  You can in fact merge a commit  This is what merge really does  A ref simply points to a commit and a branch is nothing more than a ref in the folder  git refs heads  the folder location is what determines that a ref is a branch rather than something else such as a tag   Where you lose history is that merge will do one of two things depending on circumstances   Consider           - B  B1      - A         - C  B2    In this case a merge in either direction will create a new commit with the first parent as the commit pointed to by the current checked out branch and the second parent as the commit at the tip of the branch you merged into your current branch  It has to create a new commit as both branches have changes since their common ancestor that must be combined           - B - D  B1      - A                --- C  B2    At this point D  B1  now has both sets of changes from both branches  itself and B2   However the second branch doesn t have the changes from B1  If you merge the changes from B1 into B2 so that they are syncronised then you might expect something that looks like this  you can force git merge to do it like this however with --no-ff    Expected          - B - D  B1      - A                  --- C - E  B2  Reality          - B - D  B1   B2      - A                --- C   You will get that even if B1 has additional commits  As long as there aren t changes in B2 that B1 doesn t have  the two branches will be merged  It does a fast forward which is like a rebase  rebases also eat or linearise history   except unlike a rebase as only one branch has a change set it doesn t have to apply a changeset from one branch on top of that from another   From          - B - D - E  B1      - A                --- C  B2  To          - B - D - E  B1   B2      - A                --- C   If you cease work on B1 then things are largely fine for preserving history in the long run  Only B1  which might be master  will advance typically so the location of B2 in B2 s history successfully represents the point that it was merged into B1  This is what git expects you to do  to branch B from A  then you can merge A into B as much as you like as changes accumulate  however when merging B back into A  it s not expected that you will work on B and further  If you carry on working on your branch after fast forward merging it back into the branch you were working on then your erasing B s previous history each time  You re really creating a new branch each time after fast forward commit to source then commit to branch  You end up with when you fast forward commit is lots of branches merges that you can see in the history and structure but without the ability to determine what the name of that branch was or if what looks like two separate branches is really the same branch            0   1   2   3   4  B1           -   -   -   -        ----   -   -   -   -          -   -   -   -             5   6   7   8   9  B2    1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are structural branches that show up if you follow the history for either 4 or 9  There s no way in git to know which of this unnamed and unreferenced structural branches belong to with of the named and references branches as the end of the structure  You might assume from this drawing that 0 to 4 belongs to B1 and 4 to 9 belongs to B2 but apart from 4 and 9 was can t know which branch belongs to which branch  I ve simply drawn it in a way that gives the illusion of that  0 might belong to B2 and 5 might belong to B1  There are 16 different possibilies in this case of which named branch each of the structural branches could belong to  This is assuming that none of these structural branches came from a deleted branch or as a result of merging a branch into itself when pulling from master  the same branch name on two repos is infact two branches  a separate repository is like branching all branches    There are a number of git strategies that work around this  You can force git merge to never fast forward and always create a merge branch  A horrible way to preserve branch history is with tags and or branches  tags are really recommended  according to some convention of your choosing  I realy wouldn t recommend a dummy empty commit in the branch you re merging into  A very common convention is to not merge into an integration branch until you want to genuinely close your branch  This is a practice that people should attempt to adhere to as otherwise you re working around the point of having branches  However in the real world the ideal is not always practical meaning doing the right thing is not viable for every situation  If what you re doing on a branch is isolated that can work but otherwise you might be in a situation where when multiple developers are working one something they need to share their changes quickly  ideally you might really want to be working on one branch but not all situations suit that either and generally two people working on a branch is something you want to avoid

User · Answer

You may be looking for git merge-base      git merge-base finds best common ancestor s  between two commits to use in a three-way merge  One common ancestor is better than another common ancestor if the latter is an ancestor of the former  A common ancestor that does not have any better common ancestor is a best common ancestor  i e  a merge base  Note that there can be more than one merge base for a pair of commits

User · Answer

How about something like   git log --pretty oneline master  gt  1 git log --pretty oneline branch A  gt  2  git rev-parse  diff 1 2   tail -1   cut -c 3-42

User · Answer

I ve used git rev-list for this sort of thing  For example   note the 3 dots     git rev-list --boundary branch-a   master   grep   -    cut -c2-   will spit out the branch point  Now  it s not perfect  since you ve merged master into branch A a couple of times  that ll split out a couple possible branch points  basically  the original branch point and then each point at which you merged master into branch A   However  it should at least narrow down the possibilities   I ve added that command to my aliases in    gitconfig as    alias      diverges    sh -c  git rev-list --boundary  1    2   grep   -    cut -c2-    so I can call it as     git diverges branch-a master

User · Answer

Given that so many of the answers in this thread do not give the answer the question was asking for  here is a summary of the results of each solution  along with the script I used to replicate the repository given in the question   The log  Creating a repository with the structure given  we get the git log of     git --no-pager log --graph --oneline --all --decorate   b80b645  HEAD  branch A  J - Work in branch A branch       3bd4054  master  F - Merge branch A into branch master                            a06711b I - Merge master into branch A              bcad6a3 H - Work in branch A       b46632a D - Work in branch master              413851d C - Merge branch A into branch master                          6e343aa G - Work in branch A     89655bb B - Work in branch master        74c6405  tag  branch A tag  A - Work in branch master   7a1c939 X - Work in branch master   My only addition  is the tag which makes it explicit about the point at which we created the branch and thus the commit we wish to find   The solution which works  The only solution which works is the one provided by lindes correctly returns A     diff -u  lt  git rev-list --first-parent branch A               lt  git rev-list --first-parent master            sed -ne  s     p    head -1 74c6405d17e319bd0c07c690ed876d65d89618d5   As Charles Bailey points out though  this solution is very brittle   If you branch A into master and then merge master into branch A without intervening commits then lindes  solution only gives you the most recent first divergance    That means that for my workflow  I think I m going to have to stick with tagging the branch point of long running branches  since I can t guarantee that they can be reliably be found later   This really all boils down to gits lack of what hg calls named branches  The blogger jhw calls these lineages vs  families in his article Why I Like Mercurial More Than Git and his follow-up article More On Mercurial vs  Git  with Graphs    I would recommend people read them to see why some mercurial converts miss not having named branches in git   The solutions which don t work  The solution provided by mipadi returns two answers  I and C     git rev-list --boundary branch A   master   grep  -   cut -c2- a06711b55cf7275e8c3c843748daaa0aa75aef54 413851dfecab2718a3692a4bba13b50b81e36afc   The solution provided by Greg Hewgill return I    git merge-base master branch A a06711b55cf7275e8c3c843748daaa0aa75aef54   git merge-base --all master branch A a06711b55cf7275e8c3c843748daaa0aa75aef54   The solution provided by Karl returns X     diff -u  lt  git log --pretty oneline branch A               lt  git log --pretty oneline master             tail -1   cut -c 2-42 7a1c939ec325515acfccb79040b2e4e1c3e7bbe5   The script  mkdir  1 cd  1 git init git commit --allow-empty -m  X - Work in branch master  git commit --allow-empty -m  A - Work in branch master  git branch branch A git tag branch A tag     -m  Tag branch point of branch A  git commit --allow-empty -m  B - Work in branch master  git checkout branch A git commit --allow-empty -m  G - Work in branch A  git checkout master git merge branch A       -m  C - Merge branch A into branch master  git checkout branch A git commit --allow-empty -m  H - Work in branch A  git merge master         -m  I - Merge master into branch A  git checkout master git commit --allow-empty -m  D - Work in branch master  git merge branch A       -m  F - Merge branch A into branch master  git checkout branch A git commit --allow-empty -m  J - Work in branch A branch    I doubt the git version makes much difference to this  but     git --version git version 1 7 1   Thanks to Charles Bailey for showing me a more compact way to script the example repository

[git] Finding a branch point with Git?

Examples related to git

Examples related to branch