Il 18/03/2012 21:20, Uwe Stöhr ha scritto:
Am 16.03.2012 09:32, schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
# You think your branch is good now and worth being merged to
'master'. Bug Vincent or Richard about it: they will do the merge into
master for you. After a while, if Vincent or Richard allows you and
you are more comfortable with git maybe you could merge directly to
'master' yourself.
Why am I no longer allowed to commit?
I don't understand the benefit of this complicated branching
procedure. I already developed something in the master checkout.
Vincent changes something in the meantime and after updating my
master, his changes were automatically merged with mines - exactly as
with SVN. So why do I need to work in a separate branch if I
nevertheless have to merge with the master? I mean my master branch is
already my developing branch. Every refreshing of it will merge my
changes with it so can test if my things compile.
For some bigger new features a separate branch is of course useful and
I also used this in the past in SVN. But for every small thing like
e.g. a new section in a documentation file I feels this as "shooting
with a canon onto sparrows" (as we say in German).
In Italy, this would be shooting with a cannon to a mosquito ("zanzara")
:-), I share your feeling, for what it matters. The change from svn to
git, plus the change in the development model, is probably a bit too
much, for the "casual" LyX contributor. Let's go incrementally: first we
all learn git and use it for a few months, with all its commands, with
fetch, pull, merge, clone, push, commit, --reset, the index, branch,
remote-tracking branch, rebase, squashing patches, etc...., working more
or less as we used to do with the svn repo(s), later we introduce these
development lifecycle changes..... it's also a chance to learn
incrementally the new functionality of git itself.
T.
