| 1 |
Patrick Lauer: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 15 September 2014 11:27:34 Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 15 September 2014 11:21, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> iow, git doesn't allow people to work on more than one item at a time? |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> That'd mean I need half a dozen checkouts just to emulate cvs, which |
| 7 |
>>> somehow |
| 8 |
>>> doesn't make much sense to me ... |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Use the Stash. Or just commit items, then swap branches, and then discard |
| 11 |
>> the commits sometime later before pushing. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Unlike CVS, git doesn't force you to work in "Keep millions of files in |
| 14 |
>> uncommitted states" mode just to work on a codebase, due to the commit <-> |
| 15 |
>> replicate seperation. |
| 16 |
> But that's the feature! |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I can work on bumping postgresql (takes about 1h walltime to compile and test |
| 19 |
> all versions) *and* work on a few tiny python packages while doing that. |
| 20 |
> Without breaking either process. Without multiple checkouts. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I doubt stash would allow things to progress ... but it's a cute idea. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Please read up about git branches. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I don't see anything particularly broken. People use git to work on 10+ |
| 28 |
different feature at a time. It works. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Also, let's not derail this thread to git vs CVS, thanks. |
Archives