| 1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> If you just want to do 15 standalone commits before you push you can |
| 3 |
> do those sequentially easily enough. A branch would be more |
| 4 |
> appropriate for some kind of mini-project. |
| 5 |
.. |
| 6 |
> That is the beauty of git - branches are really cheap. |
| 7 |
> So are repositories |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
And commits. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Not only are branches cheap, they are also very easy to create, and |
| 12 |
maybe most importantly they can be created at any time, even after |
| 13 |
the commits. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
It's quick and painless to create a bunch of commits which aren't |
| 16 |
really closely related in sequence, and only later clean the whole |
| 17 |
series of commits up while creating different branches for commits |
| 18 |
which should actually be grouped rather than mixed all together. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
//Peter |
Archives