[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VC mode and git
From: |
martin rudalics |
Subject: |
Re: VC mode and git |
Date: |
Wed, 08 Apr 2015 09:05:05 +0200 |
>> It is a good idea to examine what you are about to push, before
>> actually doing so, because fixing mistakes before pushing is much
>> easier (see the next section). To do that, use the command git diff
>> origin/master. If you want to show your unpushed commits with their
>> commit log messages, use git show origin/master.. instead. If you only
>> have one local commit you want to push, just git show is enough.
>>
>> And here I would try to tell that the outputs of plain 'git diff' and
>> 'git status' are different from their outputs before the commit.
>
> In the new version, "git diff" is no longer mentioned,
Hmm... I still see
We recommend invoking git status and git diff to view the changes
which will be committed, before invoking git commit -a.
> and "git
> status" was never mentioned before, so do you still think we need to
> say something about that?
Maybe it's only me. git adopts a principle epitomized by, for example,
Typically you would want comparison with the latest commit, so if you
do not give <commit>, it defaults to HEAD.
which is completely unintuitive IMO. Why should the output of two "git
diff"s differ just because I committed something in between?
> But the full text says this:
>
> This merge could fail due to conflicts between your changes and
> changes by others in the same portions of the same files. The
> conflicts could be in changes you have already committed locally, or
> in uncommitted changes.
>
> The second sentence refers to uncommitted changes. Is it really
> important to tell that in this case Git will not even start a merge?
> How will that help the reader/user when they are in this situation?
Agreed. One nitpick still:
Now you have conflicts due to local committed changes, described below.
I would say
Now you may have conflicts due to local committed changes, described below.
instead.
>> Are we really 100% sure that 'git add' gets executed with all reasonable
>> user customizations?
>
> As long as they didn't remove the Git back-end from the list, yes.
It wasn't entirely clear for me but I take your word for it.
Thanks again for taking care of this, martin
- Re: VC mode and git, (continued)
- Re: VC mode and git, martin rudalics, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/05
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/05
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/05
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/05
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/05
- Re: VC mode and git, martin rudalics, 2015/04/06
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/07
- Re: VC mode and git,
martin rudalics <=
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/08
- Re: VC mode and git, Steinar Bang, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, Steinar Bang, 2015/04/05
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/05
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/05
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/05
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/05