Is it okay to use git without branches?

Question

I have used git a few times and it has always been a painful experience. However i noticed that bitbucket host private repos for free if less then 5 users and I liked the idea of my source code being secured away from my office.

So I have created a new private repo on bitbucket and because I'm the owner and the only developer and I own the repo I can just make changes locally and then commit and push to my repo (there are no forks) without the added complication of pull requests to the owners repo.

I also realized that I hadn't created a branch and there was no need to, I was just working on my local master branch and committing and pushing to my my master branch, and i could continue this cycle without doing anything else.

So really is there any problem using git like this without using branches.

Answer 1

First, you will always use a branch (here, by default, master)

Second, for a simple development workflow like yours, you don't need any additional branches.

But should you want to isolate a development effort in a new branch, that would be as easy as:

git checkout -b newBranch
git add .
git commit -m "New branch"
git push -u origin newBranch # for the first push only

Creating a new branch is just adding a pointer to the current commit: it is a 40 bytes in a file (.git/refs/heads/newBranch, with the SHA1 of the HEAD commit)

For more on branching:

• Tower presentation (slides)
• Branch administration training

Answer 2

It is absolutely fine - just use fork instead of cloning. Branching has the terrible side effect of changing your file system underneath your feet - this is a weakness in the design of git that will no doubt bring great wealth to the person who fixes it.