On 02/16/2012 11:30 AM, Andrew wrote:
> Git is enough simple and very powerful system. It may look like too
> difficult - but it isn't too hard to understand. Look at commit like a
> patch, and on branch like a sequence of patches - it'll be easier to
> understand git in that way.
http://gitref.or
16.02.2012 21:22, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Am 16.02.2012 20:00, schrieb Andrew:
>> 16.02.2012 20:46, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
>>> Am 16.02.2012 19:00, schrieb Andrew:
16.02.2012 19:54, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Hi Andrew; hi all
>
> just to understand how we use git.
>
> I saw
Am 16.02.2012 20:00, schrieb Andrew:
> 16.02.2012 20:46, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
>> Am 16.02.2012 19:00, schrieb Andrew:
>>> 16.02.2012 19:54, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
Hi Andrew; hi all
just to understand how we use git.
I saw that Andrew merged next with next-experimental.
>>
16.02.2012 20:46, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Am 16.02.2012 19:00, schrieb Andrew:
>> 16.02.2012 19:54, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
>>> Hi Andrew; hi all
>>>
>>> just to understand how we use git.
>>>
>>> I saw that Andrew merged next with next-experimental.
>>> So will there be two "next" branches in the
Am 16.02.2012 19:00, schrieb Andrew:
> 16.02.2012 19:54, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
>> Hi Andrew; hi all
>>
>> just to understand how we use git.
>>
>> I saw that Andrew merged next with next-experimental.
>> So will there be two "next" branches in the near future, or will
>> one(next-experimental) rep
16.02.2012 19:54, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Hi Andrew; hi all
>
> just to understand how we use git.
>
> I saw that Andrew merged next with next-experimental.
> So will there be two "next" branches in the near future, or will
> one(next-experimental) replace the other(next)? And if so shouldn't we
>
Hi Andrew; hi all
just to understand how we use git.
I saw that Andrew merged next with next-experimental.
So will there be two "next" branches in the near future, or will
one(next-experimental) replace the other(next)? And if so shouldn't we
remove the old one, just one get not confused?
kp
--