Thanks for comment Raul,
How does it change the workflow, what does it changes ? Could you elaborate a
bit more please ?
I have read on Apache MLs that some persons are against using Git because, they
say, it's not good for collaboration.
Their arguments is to say that, contrary as Subversion general usage, with Git the tendency is to have bigger commit because people
work more isolated and then commit whole blocks of changes
Jacques
From: "Raul Sieberath" <of...@sieberath.com>
GIT is really a very good tool. I use it locally and for other
projects. However, it does change the work flow of development.
My 2 cents
Raul
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:14:57 -0500
Ean Schuessler <e...@brainfood.com> wrote:
Adrian Crum wrote:
> I share some of the frustration Tim expressed, but at the same time
> I really appreciate the valuable contributions your company has
> made to the project.
>
> All I would ask is that you spend a little more time reviewing code
> and testing it before committing it.
Which brings up back to the value of the GIT-based pull-oriented
workflow. In the Linux kernel when someone has a feature they say
"people come checkout my repo for the cool thing I did" and people go
examine the work. The code doesn't go into someone's tree until they
already approve of it. If they have a complain they might say "fix X,
Y and Z and I will merge in your code".
This way, if someone finds a "sloppier" workflow productive... so be
it. It may not get merged until they fix it up or someone works with
them to fix it up and it finally meets approval. The value is, people
who are not bothered by the sloppy workflow might work fast and loose
to prototype up some new feature.
