Jose, I'm not sure why you just now deleted the new branch you created? Like with your creation of it, that seems very sudden. I may still decide that your way is the way to go, but I need to understand first what I was doing wrong, and how your method is a better workflow.
Everyone else, I'm just trying to understand how to work with git. @Fred: the wiki does not explain the use case where I'm working off a remotely published feature branch, I checked before I started. Since the wiki couldn't tell me what to do, I asked the question in this recent email thread: "New Flex to JS project." I think I correctly implemented the most easy to follow instructions. So, first things first: what am I doing wrong in my workflow? EdB On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Carlos Rovira < carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote: > I'm with you @Jose and @Frederick. I remember that we was learning how to > use GIT when Frederik wrote that article. and I think its the way to go. > Many positive things, but as always it requires people to want to > understand "the git way". But if you try, you'll never go back. > > > 2014-07-10 16:53 GMT+02:00 Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com>: > > > "If you and your team are not familiar with, or don’t understand the > > intricacies of rebase, then you probably shouldn’t use it. In this > context, > > always merge is the safest option." > > That's what happen here despite my efforts to explain when and how to use > > "rebase" over "merge" (see the wiki) and my first main reason of being > > bored committing onto this repo over common stuffs. > > > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > Subject: Re: Hi, about my "experimental/VF2JS" branch > > > From: jose.barra...@codeoscopic.com > > > Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:14:50 +0200 > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > > > Hi Justin, > > > > > > Under the new light from this article, I have anything else to say. > > > > > > Clearly I’m a rebase guy, over all, after suffering at our company the > > extremely complexity that we reached by using only the merge way. > > > > > > Well, as I told to @Erik, if my proposal didn't like it or didn't was > > candidate for adopt it, I'll delete it from repository asap. > > > > > > Thanks for your attention. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > ______________________ > > > Jose Barragan > > > Senior Software Engineer > > > Codeoscopic > > > +34 912 94 80 80 > > > http://www.codeoscopic.com > > > > > > On 10 Jul 2014, at 15:37, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > >> Nothing is really wrong there, is just for an philosophical criteria > > based on best practices of git. > > > > > > > > Sorry but iMO it's not best practices, its just that a vocal group of > > git users think this it's the way to do things(tm) but other git users > > think otherwise. We also need to remember that have a central repo, need > to > > apply with the Apache way of doing things and that can sometimes be at > time > > odds with the git (or github) way of doing things. IMO Apache values > > traceability over a "clean" history. > > > > > > > > A good article about the pro and cons of merge and rebase can be > found > > here [1], it's interesting to note the Atlasssian approach. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Justin > > > > > > > > 1. > > http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/10/git-team-workflows-merge-or-rebase/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > Director de Tecnología > M: +34 607 22 60 05 > F: +34 912 94 80 80 > http://www.codeoscopic.com > http://www.directwriter.es > http://www.avant2.es > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
