[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:57:57 +0900
Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:
>> I ask because for the common small random commits case, it seems _much_
>> better to just commit to the trunk locally and rebase these local
>> commits on pulling from the main repository; the "keep N branches and
>> merge back and forth, even for trivial commits" recipe that is
>> apparently advocated for emacs seems like a huge annoyance.
> I'm having trouble figuring out which kind of workflow would benefit
> from this. Unless you work disconnected, or for some other reason wish
> to send upstream your quick fixes on batches, how would you benefit from
> `rebase'? If you work connected, just do your quick fixes on a branch
> bound to upstream, then you essentially do the same sequence of
> operations you used with CVS: update & commit, and everything with
I don't understand what you're saying -- you mean I should give up local
commits, and just use CVS-style "commits go directly to the central
Often the sort of commit I'm talking about is relatively short-lived and
ephemeral, but I usually do not want to commit to the central repo on
the spot, I'd rather commit stuff locally and let it live in my local
system for a while; I may or may not want to send it upstream or delete
it or whatever.
A rebase-on-pull-style workflow, gives some of the immediacy of a pure
CVS-style workflow, but still allows local commits / disconnection
operation / etc. I.e.: good.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.