Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 3319160
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 17, 20262026-05-17T22:47:31+00:00 2026-05-17T22:47:31+00:00

I would like to be able to keep two separate branches in a git

  • 0

I would like to be able to keep two separate branches in a git repo that cannot accidentally be merged even though the branches may contain similar content.

Is there a trick for forcing a branch to remain separate in git? That is assuming I have branch A and branch B, something like git merge B //assuming A is checked out would fail.

The concern here arose because in creating a repository of a website I’m developing I need the HEAD of the master branch to always be the current state of the stable website.

Any development commits I need to occur on the development branch with topic branches off of the development branch if necessary.

 C1-C2                        master
     \
     C3-C4-C5-C6-C9-C10-C11   development
               \
                C7-C8-C12     topic/HEAD

I need to make sure that there’s little chance of an accidental merge between the master branch and other branches.

So I’m looking for a way to step ‘in between’ a merge with the master branch to ask, “This merge will go live on the site, are you sure you want to do it?” And only after I confirm the merge will it go through.

I guess this scenario is relevant only to web developers with code that does not need to be compiled in order to run, and may pull copies of the stable website on a live installation.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-17T22:47:31+00:00Added an answer on May 17, 2026 at 10:47 pm

    I believe the only way you could accomplish this is with a pre-commit hook. From the manpage:

    This hook is invoked by git commit, and can be bypassed with –no-verify option. It takes no parameter, and is invoked before obtaining the proposed commit log message and making a commit. Exiting with non-zero status from this script causes the git commit to abort.

    So, if you really want to, you can write a pre-commit hook which checks the current branch and the branch you’re attempting to merge, and exits with non-zero status if it’s the pair you don’t want. Off the top of my head, the only way I can think of to check what branch you’re attempting to merge is to examine the file .git/MERGE_MSG and parse the first line. (The alternative, .git/MERGE_HEAD will tell you the SHA1 you’re merging, but with no record of what branch it was, so if two branches are in the same place, you’re out of luck.

    The pre-commit hook is obviously not run for fast-forward merges; I doubt there’s really any way to protect against that. But presumably if you keep the branches from being merged, there won’t ever be a fast-forward attempt.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I would like to be able to loop through all of the defined parameters
We would like to be able to nightly make a copy/backup/snapshot of a production
I would like to be able to use the Tab key within a text
I would like to be able to display some dynamic text at the mouse
I would like to be able to obtain all the parameter values from the
I would like to be able to define and use a custom type in
I would like to be able to predict what will be in the resulting
I would like to be able to do such things as var m1 =
I would like to be able to embed a command line interpreter inside a
I would like to be able to add a message to a unit test,

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.