From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:00:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <4626C4B9.1040707@midwinter.com> <200704190408.59595.jnareb@gmail.com> <4627BCF0.3000004@midwinter.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org To: Steven Grimm X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 19 23:01:02 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HedkT-0004GW-Hz for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:01:01 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965345AbXDSVA4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:00:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965397AbXDSVA4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:00:56 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:36260 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S965345AbXDSVAz (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:00:55 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2007 21:00:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp058) with SMTP; 19 Apr 2007 23:00:54 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+gAU0JnaagPRoLlFhBuR+YOpNC0bhH2/LD3jAoQD rn4VHoKAHps19J X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <4627BCF0.3000004@midwinter.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Steven Grimm wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Let me pick up the ball here. Once you did your share of conflicting > > merges, you _will_ realize how much better it is to merge when you are > > at a relatively stable state, i.e. you can test things (if only to > > make sure that the merge did not introduce strange side effects). And > > guess what, at such a stage I would commit anyway. > > That's a great workflow if you're working on relatively discrete, > standalone changes. A lot of the time, when I'm working on an isolated > change, I do just that, and I merge when I'm stable just like you > describe. That's probably the vastly most common mode of operation for > distributed open-source projects, which obviously were git's initial > target audience. It is also possible (and I do that) when merging often. I use cherry-pick for that. At a later stage, I merge, and this mostly succeeds, since the merge is really a 3-way merge (with the obvious results). > And out of curiosity, are you using git for distributed, relatively > autonomous development, or for collaboration with a high level of > interdependency between developers? I use Git virtually everywhere it can be used: - backups - personal projects - configuration files - documents - collaboration with other people - tracking CVS - ... Ciao, Dscho