On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Miguel de Benito Delgado
<address@hidden> wrote:
Hi Alex,
Am 16.03.2012 06:41 schrieb "Aleksandr Dobkin" <address@hidden>:
> What is nice about git is that you can maintain multiple branches of the project and switch between them very quickly. Had you been using git, think you would have caught this error when you merged your work into the master branch and tried to compile.
Thanks for the idea. So: I could constantly fetch the latest from the main branch, commit locally as much as I wanted, then decide when to push it back to main, right? And that way merging conflicts ought to happen seldom... because merging is a real PITA!
The answer is yes BECAUSE before you push your accumulated changes you would type something like:
# get latest upstream
git fetch origin
# re-wind my changes and re-play them onto the latest master branch from upstream
get rebase origin/master
# push my changes
git push origin
And so a merge is not even required!
When you do the rebase there may be conflicts if the upstream changed, but you just fix up each commit and continue the rebase. It will be as if the fixed-up commit was always that way.
It took me a few months to get to grips with git's power and safety, but there is really no going back.
Git doesn't have branches the way you think it does.
Every commit is really a new branch because you can still check out the previous state and make a different commit; or someone else on their computer can make a different commit to the same point you just committed to on your computer (rebasing makes it go away by letting you fetch his changes and re-apply yours on top) or merging is also good.
But the point is, what git shows as a branch is really a labelled tip. When you commit onto a checked out labelled tip, the label is updated to the new commit. But of course only on your computer. (git is distributed).
So for big project work mature changes slowly make their way to the main repo as they get acceptance.
Also with git, branches are not spacial like SVN - they don't look like directories, instead they are like alternate states of the diretory
And git to svn and back work well? Well, I guess I could look that up ;-)
Thanks!
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Miguel de Benito Delgado <address@hidden> wrote:
>> And... yep! it was yourself truly
That would be of course, "yours truly".
___________________
Miguel de Benito.
_______________________________________________
Texmacs-dev mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev