Re: GIT and CVS

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:53:56 +0200
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> Cc: eliz@gnu.org, pmuldoon@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org
> 
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:22:53 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > $ cvs update
> > (test changes, write changelog, send diff for review)
> [...]
> > With lots of "cvs diff" invocations in between to check my changes and
> > remind myself what I'm working on.
> 
> Replace `cvs update' by: git stash; git pull; git stash pop

But with bzr, you just say "bzr update" and that's it.

> Replace `cvs diff' by: git diff HEAD

But with bzr, you just say "bzr diff".

> (not sure if the latter is needed but IMO it simplifies some assumptions)

It is indeed one of my problems with git that I'm never sure what will
happen if I omit certain arguments that are supposed to be the
default.  But I always thought that was because I don't use git
enough.  However, if people like you, who do it all the time, are
still uncertain, then I guess it is something to consider when
selecting a VCS.

> > and I have to commit half-finished work,
> 
> You don't have to.

You mean, you can pull or merge when you have uncommitted changes?

> BTW you are right this style is not native to GIT, you should be on branch.

One problem with git is that too many things are not "right", and you
are punished if you like them.  I don't like software that imposes
ideology on me.

I do use local branches, but I don't like a tool that makes it very
hard not to work from a local branch.