On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:10:17PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:50:52PM +0100, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 08:33:29PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > Having incomplete changes in the tree is bad for things like bisect.
> > > It s
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:50:52PM +0100, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 08:33:29PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > Having incomplete changes in the tree is bad for things like bisect.
> > It shouldn't be forced. The big issue here is that merging changes the
> > worki
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 08:33:29PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:55:27PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <
> > jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:09:58PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:55:27PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <
> jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:09:58PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Joshua Paine > >wrote:
> > >
> > > S
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <
jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:09:58PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Joshua Paine >wrote:
> >
> > Scenario (2): You are in the middle of a big change when a minor bug
> report
>
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 05:14:08PM +0100, Remigiusz Modrzejewski wrote:
> 1) work freely on my big change, committing atomic changes
> fl commit --private
> fl commit --private
> [...]
> fl commit --private
> 2) prepare to make a "real commit"
> fl up trunk
> fl merge private
> 3) make sure everyth
On Dec 15, 2010, at 16:53 , Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:09:58PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Joshua Paine wrote:
>>
>> Scenario (2): You are in the middle of a big change when a minor bug report
>> comes in. You stash your incomplete
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:09:58PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Joshua Paine wrote:
>
> Scenario (2): You are in the middle of a big change when a minor bug report
> comes in. You stash your incomplete change, fix the minor bug, then pop
> your stash to continue
Hi,
I'll say a few things since I was one of those who said
"git stash" in a post :)
"git stash", I think, is not a necessity but a convenience.
There is nothing that you can do with git stash that you
can't do with branches.
> Scenario (1): git-pull (the equivalent of "fossil update" in this c
To this point all my fossil usage is mostly-solo, whereas I've been
using git on small teams. So when I said I miss it from git, I more
properly meant "it really comes in handy in my usage of git, and I know
fossil doesn't have it, and if I were using fossil in the same contexts
as I'm using gi
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:09:58PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Joshua Paine wrote:
>
> >
> > It would be nice to have something like `git stash`, too. Probably the
> > biggest thing I miss from git.
> >
> >
> I've been reading up on git-stash to see if Fossil nee
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:09:58 -05 wrote:
Richard> So in summary - Fossil appears to already do everything that
Richard> git-stash does and do it at least as easily as git-stash.
Richard> Furthermore, I think for the sake of usability that is
Richard> important to keep Fossil as simple as possible a
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Joshua Paine wrote:
>
> It would be nice to have something like `git stash`, too. Probably the
> biggest thing I miss from git.
>
>
I've been reading up on git-stash to see if Fossil needs a similar feature.
So far I don't see the need, since stash doesn't do anyt
13 matches
Mail list logo
