From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Baudis Subject: Re: Re: Re: Add "clone" support to lntree Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 03:12:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20050419011206.GT5554@pasky.ji.cz> References: <20050416233305.GO19099@pasky.ji.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 19 03:08:48 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DNhE5-00079k-HD for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2005 03:08:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261245AbVDSBMY (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:12:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261247AbVDSBMY (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:12:24 -0400 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:17587 "HELO machine.sinus.cz") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261245AbVDSBMK (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:12:10 -0400 Received: (qmail 30293 invoked by uid 2001); 19 Apr 2005 01:12:07 -0000 To: Daniel Barkalow Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-message-flag: Outlook : A program to spread viri, but it can do mail too. Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org For the record, mostly... (this is how it already is in git-pasky-0.5) Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 02:07:36AM CEST, I got a letter where Daniel Barkalow told me that... > > Now, what about git branch and git update for switching between > > branches? I think this is the most controversial part; these are > > basically just shortcuts for not having to do git fork, and I wouldn't > > mind so much removing them, if you people really consider them too ugly > > a wart for the soft clean git skin. I admit that they both come from a > > hidden prejudice that git fork is going to be slow and eat a lot of > > disk. > > I think that this just confuses matters. I killed them both for good. > > The idea for git update for switching between branches is that > > especially when you have two rather similar branches and mostly do stuff > > on one of them, but sometimes you want to do something on the other one, > > you can do just quick git update, do stuff, and git update back, without > > any forking. > > I still think that fork should be quick enough, or you could leave the > extra tree around. I'm not against having such a command, but I think it > should be a separate command rather than a different use of update, since > it would be used by poeople working in different ways. I've removed git branch, removed the possibility for git update to switch branches and renamed git update to git seek. You can do git seek git-pasky-0.1 and examine stuff, but your tree is also blocked at the same time - git won't let you commit, merge and such. By doing git seek or git seek master you return back to your branch (assuming its name is master). I think git fork is after all good enough for branching and it is the clean way. Shall there be a big demand for it, it should be minimal hassle to implement 'git switch', which would do that. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor