| 1 |
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> iow, git doesn't allow people to work on more than one item at a time? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> That'd mean I need half a dozen checkouts just to emulate cvs, which somehow |
| 6 |
> doesn't make much sense to me ... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Well, you can work on as many things as you like in git, but it |
| 10 |
doesn't keep track of what changes have to do with what things if you |
| 11 |
don't commit in-between. So, you'll have a big list of changes in |
| 12 |
your index, and you'll have to pick-and-choose what you commit at any |
| 13 |
one time. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If you really want to work on many things "at once" the better way to |
| 16 |
do it is to do a temporary branch per-thing, and when you switch |
| 17 |
between things you switch between branches, and then move into master |
| 18 |
things as they are done. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I assume you mean working on things that will take a while to |
| 21 |
complete. If you just want to do 15 standalone commits before you |
| 22 |
push you can do those sequentially easily enough. A branch would be |
| 23 |
more appropriate for some kind of mini-project. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
You can work on branches without pushing those to the master repo. |
| 26 |
Or, if appropriate a project team might choose to push their branch to |
| 27 |
master, or to some other repo (like an overlay). This would allow |
| 28 |
collaborative work on a large commit, with a quick final merge into |
| 29 |
the main tree. That is the beauty of git - branches are really cheap. |
| 30 |
So are repositories - if somebody wants to do all their work in github |
| 31 |
and then push to the main tree, they can do that. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives