[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VC mode and git

From: Sergey Organov
Subject: Re: VC mode and git
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 15:27:18 +0300
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> From: Sergey Organov <address@hidden>
>> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:52:20 +0300
>> >> "Incorporates changes from the named commits (since the time their
>> >> histories diverged from the current branch) into the current branch."
>> >
>> > Good luck understanding this when learning what merge does in Git!
>> > Starting from the "branch" thingy, which, as you will read everywhere
>> > is just a pointer to the HEAD commit.  So what does it mean to
>> > "incorporate changes in the current branch", if the branch is just a
>> > pointer?
>> Yes, a pointer that moves to point to new commit automatically every
>> time you commit on the branch. Incorporating changes means the same
>> thing every time: commit. What's new or unusual about it?
> A merge does much more than just commit.  At least AFAIU.

Dunno what you have in mind. After true merge operation is finished, the
only result of it is single commit appended to your current branch. Git
/is/ that simple. All the possible complexity is in the stage of content
preparation for this commit.


>> In this particular case he said utter lie
> Whoa!  Slow down, nobody lies here.

I didn't mean that he intentionally lied, sorry if it sounded like that.
What he said is not true though. Misinformation.

>> > Give up!  Git's documentation "needs work" (TM).  It's futile to try
>> > to refute that.
>> Nobody refutes it. Any documentation needs work (TM). Git's needs work.
>> It does not mean that spreading misinformation about its current state
>> is acceptable.
> Saying that documentation is inadequate isn't spreading
> misinformation.

Please re-read what I complained about. Here is what Alan said about git
merge manual page:

"... it doesn't even say where the two sources for its merge come from,
or where it puts the result."

"Part of the problem is that the git-merge man page doesn't say that it
messes with the working tree."

I'm sorry, but it /is/ plain misinformation, as anybody can readily see
himself by RTM.

Don't spread misinformation, please.

-- Sergey.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]