|
From: | Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: Switch back to savannah using GIT |
Date: | Mon, 25 May 2015 18:00:46 +0200 |
Am 25.05.2015 um 16:57 schrieb Ivan Vučica <ivan@vucica.net>:
checkout a branch work on it, test then git diff to see what I have really changed after editing the sources back and forth use git add -p to make small and logically connected patches git commit each one and repeat git add -p until done finally git push when connected to the network next time I couldn’t do that when working with SVN. Rather my workflow was: svn update work on it, test git commit everything (related or unrelated) before I lost network connection (e.g. when working on the road) to be able to svn update on a different machine This ended up in big commits with multiple, completely unrelated changes. Yes, the resulting working tree was what I wanted to have, but the intermediate steps were horrible, untraceable and unrevertable. You can still do the same with git (git commit -a), but you do not need to use it that way. If commits are done carefully, it is easy to git revert it weeks later.
And this are more facts than opinions. They are amongst the reasons why there is a trend from SVN towards git. Even if some projects decide for good reasons to go with SVN, they are a minority. Well, the minority might be right. And sometimes is. But sometimes the majority might be right. Especially if it is about “tools” and not the project itself.
this is indeed very important. With git I open a new branch, apply the patch, test - and perhaps modify. But don’t have to commit or push anything. This is here git am or git cherry pick does a good job.
What do we need them for?
You see, I am strongly in favour of git - but not because I am a “fan” (I hated it the first months and sometimes still do), but because it is better to use. I would immediately switch if I could get access to something even better than git. BR, Nikolaus PS: Better is the enemy of good. |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |