From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-40208-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 31245 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2011 08:30:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 31236 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Nov 2011 08:30:26 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.6 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 08:30:10 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LUJ00800GNEUQ00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 10:30:08 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.66.14]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LUJ008EAGY5TH60@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 10:30:06 +0200 (IST)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 08:30:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: GIT and CVS
In-reply-to: <87bosi5qts.fsf@dod.no>
To: Steinar Bang <sb@dod.no>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83obwhg2xy.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <m3sjmwn0nh.fsf@redhat.com> <83r52g1rly.fsf@gnu.org> <m37h48mqbh.fsf@redhat.com> <83hb3ckn2s.fsf@gnu.org> <201110141022.p9EAMrUN030848@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <87bosi5qts.fsf@dod.no>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00086.txt.bz2

> From: Steinar Bang <sb@dod.no>
> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:47:43 +0100
> 
> >>>>> Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>:
> 
> > I'm a git hater.  And the reason I hate GIT is because of the
> > development model it enforces.  It doesn't match the way I work.  My
> > workflow looks more or less as follows:
> 
> > $ cvs update
> > (make some changes)
> > ...
> > (come back a couple of days later)
> > $ cvs update
> > (merge conflicts, make some more changes)
> > ...
> > $ cvs update
> > (test changes, write changelog, send diff for review)
> > ...
> > $ cvs update
> > (test changes again, fixup changelog)
> > $ cvs commit
>
> [git wokflow omitted]

Mark explicitly said he wanted to stick to his workflow.  Showing him
a completely different workflow, one that uses 2 additional commands,
whose semantics is non-trivial (e.g., the "rebase" part needs to be
well understood before you can use it safely, is not what was
requested.