On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 04:27:00PM +0100, Maximilian Albert wrote: > 2009/1/18 Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca>: > > By "work fine", I also want to know that: > > - future pulls work with simply "git pull" or "git pull origin" > > (whatever is listed in that section) > > - creating patches works with whatever the command is > > (whether that's "git-format-patch HEAD or MASTER or whatever) > > Should this take the possibility into account that people are able to > create their own branches?
No. > Or would it be OK to assume they work on > master (because if they know how to create branches they also know how > to use these commands)? Yes. The target audience is this: "Hi guys, I have OSX and I noticed a few typos in the docs. I'd like to fix them, but there's a lot of mistakes so I don't want to type them all in an email. I've never used git before, but I have macports set up and have run port install git." Then we say "read CG 1 to get started with git, and CG 2 to find otu what file(s) to edit to fix the typos". $helpful_user then looks at CG 1, does a copy&paste to get the source, edits the files, does more copy&paste to update git, commit the files, and produce a patch. > Anyway, when I "reset --hard" the master branch to a previous commit > (so that it differs from remotes/origin/master and I don't have to > wait for any of the developers to commit something to the remote > branch) then both "git pull" and "git pull origin" work fine to > synchronize master and remotes/origin/master again. I've had problems with just "git pull"... > This only applies if there are no local changes, though. ... ah, for precisely for this reason. :) > In case there are, then issuing > either command produces a merge commit so that the commit graph now > looks like this: > > * master after merging > |\ > | \ > | \ > * * remotes/origin/master (on the right) > \ | > \| > * > | > > I'm not sure if this constellation can cause problems when producing > patches. It seems that the command "git-format-patch origin" works > fine, though (Rainer, thanks for pointing out that this should be the > correct command). See, I've been using git for a few years now, and I only barely understand what you're talking about. (not because I'm an idiot; just because I've never been willing to put any time or effort towards learning any git theory. If I can use it like cvs -- checkout, add, commit, update -- then I'm happy) > I personally prefer to checkout the remote branch before pulling and > then doing a rebase: > > git-checkout remotes/origin/master > git-pull > git-rebase remotes/origin/master master > > This produces a linear history, which I personally find "cleaner". :-) > But I suppose that "git-format-patch origin" does the right thing in > both situations. I don't know what you prefer to be included in the > CG. Mao. I'm totally lost now. Git people, please discuss and modify the CG accordingly. I promise to read the non-theory parts of the CG in a week or two, and will use whatever commands are there. In the copy&paste sections. I still plan on ignoring any paragraph which has more than three sentences, or any section which contains more than three paragraphs. :) Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel