Re: [Fwd: German translation help file]

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, John Mandereau wrote:

> Till Rettig wrote:
> 
> > Do I now understand right that when problems emerge the git pull will 
> > save files under different names (or insert the problem signs, as you 
> > had it) and then you have to change them and make git update-index on 
> > the very file (this was in a message to Daniel T C. today). I think 
> > this is also an important remark, these kind of difficulties will 
> > probably appear to the beginner especially often. At least for me, if 
> > I changed I file that was already there and made the commit nothing 
> > happened. If I would git add it, then I get the mistake that the file 
> > is already added. Only with update-index I had success. But this might 
> > also be that my version of git is so old...
> 
> See my last message to Daniel Tonda C. about too old Git/Cogito
> versions.

Yes, this is a real problem. And I think that it is a pity this difference 
exists altogether (discussions revolve around cogito hiding the "index" of 
git, where most users of git will not see the index at all). But I think 
that the upcoming version of git will be a lot more user-friendly.

The thing to keep in mind is that you should only pull the upstream branch 
when you committed _all_ of your changes. So, "git status" is a very 
important command.

If you have conflicts, then these conflicts will be visible enclosed in 
conflict markers ("<<<<", "====" and ">>>>"). To see if you resolved all 
conflicts, just do a "git diff" to see if there are still conflict 
markers. If there are no conflicts left, just do a "git commit -a" and it 
will automagically commit all, as a merge.

> Anyway, I think I was wrong to tell you to pull with web/master as local 
> name of the remote branch, whereas you may not already have this name. 
> Johannes?

That is why I keep stressing that you should pull "web/master:web/master" 
into your current branch, which should _not_ be named "web/master". If you 
do that, not only will the upstream "web/master" be merged (this is the 
left part, i.e. before the ":"), but the local branch "web/master" will be 
updated to the upstream version (this is the right part).

> > So this update-index was the only thing I find still somehow important, 
> > despite Johannes S. thinks it is not a good idea.
> 
> It's not a bad idea, it's only more complicated. When resolving
> conflicts, I don't know if there are other ways than using update-index.

$ git commit -a

commits all changes (of files git knows about). I think this is really 
easy, and telling people about update-index is only confusing.

Ciao,
Dscho