On 16 September 2014 22:14, Steven D'Aprano < steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> > wrote: > >> "Frank Millman" <fr...@chagford.com>: > >> > >>> You are encouraged to make liberal use of 'branches', > >> > >> Personally, I only use forks, IOW, "git clone". I encourage that > >> practice. Then, there is little need for "git checkout". Instead, I just > >> cd to a different directory. > >> > >> Branches and clones are highly analogous processwise; I would go so far > >> as to say that they are redundant. > > > > But rather than listening to, shall we say, *strange* advice like > > this, Frank, you'll do well to pick up a reliable git tutorial, which > > should explain branches, commits, the working tree, etc, etc, etc. > > Isn't this "strange advice" standard operating procedure in Mercurial? I'm > not an expert on either hg or git, but if I've understood hg correctly, the > way to begin an experimental branch is to use hg clone. It depends entirely on how you're comfortable working. I tend to have a clone per feature branch (they all push to the same central repo) and then create a named branch per task (which may be a prototype, bugfix, enhancement, whatever). Makes it very easy to switch between tasks - I just update to a different changeset (normally the tip of a named branch) and force a refresh in my IDE. When I'm happy, I merge into the feature branch, then pull the necessary changesets into other feature branch repos to merge/graft as appropriate. Branches and clones are two different ways of organising, and I find that things work best for me when I use both. Tim Delaney
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list