Create Git branch with current changes

Question

I started working on my master branch thinking that my task would be easy. After a while I realized it would take more work and I want to do all this work in a new branch.

How can I create a new branch and take all these changes with me without dirtying master?

possible duplicate of [Move existing, uncommited work to a new branch in Git](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1394797/move-existing-uncommited-work-to-a-new-branch-in-git) — Marijn, Jun 19 '13 at 09:29
dup of http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2569459/git-create-a-branch-from-unstaged-uncommited-changes-on-master — andrej, Jan 28 '14 at 12:51
Yes these are duplicate questions, but the wording is so different that I think this is useful to keep. Note the keywords here: `branch current changes` vs `existing uncommited branch`. Anyone who speaks English will immediately see that they are the same, but search engines probably won't. Keep this question. — SMBiggs, Sep 25 '19 at 22:08
The latest/better answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/2569513/1038812 — Matthew, Jun 29 '21 at 00:56
@Matthew Thank you. I have reorganized [my answer below](https://stackoverflow.com/a/3899660/6309) to put *first* the 2.23 `git switch` (that I [previously documented back in 2019](https://stackoverflow.com/a/57066202/6309)) — VonC, Jun 29 '21 at 05:51

VonC · Accepted Answer · 2021-11-05T21:04:48.323

878

If you hadn't made any commit yet, only (1: branch) and (3: checkout) would be enough.
Or, in one command: git checkout -b newBranch

With Git 2.23+ (Q3 2019), the new command git switch would create the branch in one line (with the same kind of reset --hard, so beware of its effect):

# First, save your work in progress!
git stash

# Then, one command to create *and* switch to a new branch
git switch -f -c topic/wip HEAD~3

As mentioned in the git reset man page:

$ git stash                # (0) Save your work in progress
$ git branch topic/wip     # (1)
$ git reset --hard HEAD~3  # (2)  NOTE: use $git reset --soft HEAD~3 (explanation below)
$ git checkout topic/wip   # (3)

You have made some commits, but realize they were premature to be in the "master" branch. You want to continue polishing them in a topic branch, so create "topic/wip" branch off of the current HEAD.
Rewind the master branch to get rid of those three commits.
Switch to "topic/wip" branch and keep working.

Again: new way (since 2019 and Git2.23) to do all that in one command:

git switch -f -c topic/wip HEAD~3

Note: due to the "destructive" effect of a git reset --hard command (it does resets the index and working tree. Any changes to tracked files in the working tree since <commit> are discarded), I would rather go with:

$ git reset --soft HEAD~3  # (2)

This would make sure I'm not losing any private file (not added to the index).
The --soft option won't touch the index file nor the working tree at all (but resets the head to <commit>, just like all modes do).

edited Nov 05 '21 at 21:04

answered Oct 10 '10 at 08:52

VonC

1,129,465
480
4,036
4,755

6

It's probably also worth noting that this wouldn't be a good idea if you have committed topic material to your master branch in a repository that other people pull from. Or at least, if you do need to do a reset you'll need to tell people that's what you are doing so the warnings from their next pull aren't too much of a shock. – Andrew Walker Oct 10 '10 at 09:54
I actually had not made any commits yet. So really easy, thanks mate – willcodejavaforfood Oct 10 '10 at 11:05
56

Note to future readers: read from bottom to top (or be sure to read the whole thing). `git reset --hard` will nuke your changes, and if they aren't committed yet they are unrecoverable! You may just need `git checkout -b …` – Conrad Meyer May 30 '12 at 18:58
4

@ConradMeyer Good point. I have edited the answer and put the `git checkout -b` first. – VonC May 30 '12 at 19:54
6

Why topic/branch?? why not just branchname, is there a special reason for this naming? just wondering. – Sam Stoelinga Jun 29 '12 at 06:50
3

@It is just a namespace naming convention (a way to easily classify branches, using **hierarchical** branch names to define namespaces): http://stackoverflow.com/a/2527436/6309. For instance, for issues: http://randyfay.com/content/pushing-and-deleting-git-topic-branches-screencast. You don't have to use a hierarchy when namming your branches. `topic_wip` would work too ;) – VonC Jun 29 '12 at 07:51
1

Should I always use "HEAD~3", or should the number depend on the number of commits to master? – qbolec Jun 01 '17 at 08:21
1

@qbolec No: you should rewind by number of commits right for your case. – VonC Jun 01 '17 at 09:37
After `git checkout -b newBranch` a push fails with the message ***`fatal: The current branch newBranch has no upstream branch`***. As far as I know this is the latest version of Git (2.16.3). What is so broken with this tool? – jww Apr 04 '18 at 08:18
@jww Would a `git push -u origin` newBranch work better? – VonC Apr 04 '18 at 08:34
3

A reminder to readers: when attempting a git operation you're not familiar with and whose outcome you're not certain about while dealing with data you'd be unhappy/devastated to lose (such as OP's changes present only in the local master branch), make a copy of your repo dir first. That way if things don't turn out as expected, you can always go back. – Ville Aug 29 '18 at 18:08
I don't understand why this answer has been accepted and voted so much since it starts by giving a command that actually destroys the changes that you want to keep. I suggest its author to fix that. Don't joke around with other people's work. – Johan Boulé Nov 05 '21 at 17:25
@JohanBoulé I (the author) agree with you, and have edited the answer to propose a way to save the work in progress first, then create a switch branch (without losing anything). – VonC Nov 05 '21 at 21:40
I didn't commit changes in local branch; so I just used `git checkout -b newBranch` – DanielBell99 Mar 01 '22 at 15:45
1

@StressedBoi_69420 That would work too, although `git switch` is the recommended command, now. – VonC Mar 01 '22 at 15:50
Ahh ok. Thank you, will research about that. Cheers lad – DanielBell99 Mar 01 '22 at 15:51

score 357 · Answer 2 · edited Apr 29 '22 at 18:41

357

Like stated in this question: Git: Create a branch from unstagged/uncommited changes on master: stash is not necessary.

Just use:

git checkout -b feature/newbranch

Any uncommitted work will be taken along to the new branch.

If you try to push you will get the following message

fatal: The current branch feature/newbranch has no upstream branch. To push the current branch and set the remote as upstream, use
git push --set-upstream origin feature/newbranch

Just do as suggested to create the branch remotely:

git push --set-upstream origin feature/newbranch

edited Apr 29 '22 at 18:41

Paul Verest

55,983
44
191
313

answered Aug 19 '11 at 06:05

EeKay

5,936
3
22
24

4

You'll get the 'no upstream branch' error only if you push the new branch, not when you commit the new work. – sam Nov 15 '17 at 23:59
2

@sam I've amended the answer accordingly – Nick Kennedy Jan 11 '18 at 22:51

score 106 · Answer 3 · edited Sep 15 '21 at 12:30

106

Follow these steps:

Create a new branch:
```
 git branch newfeature
```
Checkout new branch: (this will not reset your work.)
```
git checkout newfeature
```
Now commit your work on this new branch:
```
git commit -s
```

Using above steps will keep your original branch clean
and you dont have to do any 'git reset --hard'.

P.S. -s parameter for commit is for --signoff

edited Sep 15 '21 at 12:30

Paul Verest

55,983
44
191
313

answered Aug 25 '11 at 15:12

AvadhP

1,341
2
11
11

3

What does the '-s' do in step 3? – SMBiggs Dec 11 '15 at 16:54
15

@ScottBiggs It is unnecessary, but a practice some people follow. It is [short for "--signoff"](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-commit) and adds your user name to the commit for future people looking at the logs to know that you condoned this commit. – Frank Bryce Feb 03 '16 at 15:46
9

Nice answer, but no need for `-s` in step 3. – Mohammed Ali Jul 18 '16 at 16:37

score 39 · Answer 4 · edited Oct 10 '15 at 14:15

39

Since you haven't made any commits yet, you can save all your changes to the stash, create and switch to a new branch, then pop those changes back into your working tree:

git stash  # save local modifications to new stash
git checkout -b topic/newbranch
git stash pop  # apply stash and remove it from the stash list

edited Oct 10 '15 at 14:15

Six

4,562
3
27
37

answered Oct 10 '10 at 15:27

Ether

51,401
13
87
157

13

or as VonC pointed out 'git checkout -b newbranch' and skip the stash – willcodejavaforfood Oct 10 '10 at 15:46
@will: I was thinking that creating a new branch would overwrite any uncommitted changes you had, but if this is not the case, yes you can skip the stash. – Ether Oct 10 '10 at 15:58
1

I tried it and it worked fine, git is very thoughtful and wont overwrite any local changes – willcodejavaforfood Oct 10 '10 at 16:35
2

I assume it was a typo but just a heads up that `git stash push` is not a command. You would presumably want to use `git stash` or `git stash save`. If you want to include untracked files in the stash, use the `--include-untracked` option. Likewise, if you want to include both untracked and ignored files in the stash, use the `--add` option instead. – Six Oct 10 '15 at 13:43
in case you have created the branch already, this is helpful. – Surely Mar 10 '16 at 06:32

score 15 · Answer 5 · answered Apr 24 '17 at 17:39

15

To add new changes to a new branch and push to remote:

git branch branch/name
git checkout branch/name
git push origin branch/name

Often times I forget to add the origin part to push and get confused why I don't see the new branch/commit in bitbucket

answered Apr 24 '17 at 17:39

Patrick Schaefer

791
8
20

Create Git branch with current changes

5 Answers5

Linked

Related