From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2204 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2011 15:30:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 2189 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Nov 2011 15:30:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from lo.gmane.org (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 15:30:22 +0000 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RPFXA-0002S1-G6 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:30:20 +0100 Received: from cm-84.208.231.161.getinternet.no ([84.208.231.161]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:30:20 +0100 Received: from sb by cm-84.208.231.161.getinternet.no with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:30:20 +0100 Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com To: gdb@sources.redhat.com From: Steinar Bang Subject: Re: GIT and CVS Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 15:30:00 -0000 Message-ID: <87pqgx4av5.fsf@dod.no> References: <83r52g1rly.fsf@gnu.org> <83hb3ckn2s.fsf@gnu.org> <201110141022.p9EAMrUN030848@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <87bosi5qts.fsf@dod.no> <83obwhg2xy.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 >>>>> Eli Zaretskii : > Mark explicitly said he wanted to stick to his workflow. Even though it isn't the best workflow with the tool? Many small commits _is_ the best approach with git, because it prepares for clever merging. Many small commits gives nice `C-x v g' results in emacs (or for that matter nice and relevant `C-x v l' results), even after merging right and left. (Also, speaking as an ex-CVS user I've actually wanted to do small commits, with relevant comments. But I have constrained myself to use big commits, to avoid triggering too many builds on continous integration servers.) > 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, I mentioned "rebase" because that's the thing that seems to give the most familiar behaviour to many ex-CVS users (eg. myself). I no longer thing rebase is a good idea, so maybe I shouldn't have...? > is not what was requested. Then he could just use "git pull", instead of "cvs update" (as others have suggested), and revert to git stash git pull git stash pop if the pull touches a file that has been modified locally, and then eventually "git push"(*). That should be more or less identical to the cvs workflow. At least I fail to see the difference. (*) I saw this discussed in a different place in the thread. I do know the difference between a simple "git push" and "git push origin HEAD", but I will only spend time to explain it if anybody expresses interest...:-)