| 1 |
On Monday 15 September 2014 11:27:34 Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 15 September 2014 11:21, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 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 |
| 6 |
> > somehow |
| 7 |
> > doesn't make much sense to me ... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Use the Stash. Or just commit items, then swap branches, and then discard |
| 10 |
> the commits sometime later before pushing. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Unlike CVS, git doesn't force you to work in "Keep millions of files in |
| 13 |
> uncommitted states" mode just to work on a codebase, due to the commit <-> |
| 14 |
> replicate seperation. |
| 15 |
But that's the feature! |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I can work on bumping postgresql (takes about 1h walltime to compile and test |
| 18 |
all versions) *and* work on a few tiny python packages while doing that. |
| 19 |
Without breaking either process. Without multiple checkouts. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I doubt stash would allow things to progress ... but it's a cute idea. |
Archives