Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

Steven Grimm wrote:

> Andy Parkins wrote:
>> svn update = git pull
>>   
> 
> That's not quite equivalent, and it's one of the biggest annoyances svn 
> users seem to have when starting up with git in my observation (having 
> gone through it myself and watched a few other people at my company do 
> so.) svn update will merge upstream changes into your locally edited but 
> not yet committed files. git pull will just complain if you have 
> uncommitted local edits to files that changed upstream.

In my opinion the update-then-commit workflow CVS and SVN forces on users
is one of the more annoying features, forcing the user to resolve conflicts
if he/she wants to be up-to-date.

The update-then-commit assumes that you merge on update local modifications
with current server version, assuming that ancestor is current local
committed version. This makes off-line committing impossible, and makes
rare updates (server version advanced by more than one commit) unnecessary
hard.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git