After only one week using git I must say thanks guys for insisting! I've
branched like crazy, often in the past with
git branch -m master somenewbranch
git branch master HEAD~N
for some natural number N, ;-P. I currently have a few branches with
subprojects and I branch again for bugfixes or experiments and
everything is FAST! Merging is smooth (although I still hate it) and
another feature I love is the stashing away of changes.
For the browsing of changes and regular use I love SourceTree for
MacOS, it's free and it's great. You can browse everything really fast,
stage or discard hunks from your changes before committing and you can
do almost anything in an easy way. Not opensource, though.
Thanks for convincing me to switch!
Miguel.
Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote:
I found a nice description of a workflow[1] that, if I am not
mistaken, would please Joris: contributors prepare carefully thought
out pull requests, eventually rebasing them if necessary so that no
conflicts arise upon merging, and shoot out a pull request. This is
how it looks like from the main developer's (main branch) control
center:
https://github.com/pydata/pandas/pulls
(of course, core devs will have something similar, so that you can
think of a hierarchical structure whereby a new dev would request pull
from a core dev and only after some time in the tree of a core dev
would a pull request be issued against the main branch).
-á.
[1] This is the description of the workflow that includes instructions
on how to test, etc.
http://pandas.pydata.org/developers.html#working-with-the-code
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 05:09, Joris van der Hoeven
<vdhoe...@texmacs.org> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 04:32:05PM +0100, Joris van der Hoeven wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 02:53:06PM +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
Forgive me if this has been discussed to death, but I haven't seen much
discussion on it re:-)
If you use git then people can sit on commits a bit longer before they have
to push them. Less rushing and more testing means less bad commits.
One more thing about this issue: the main difference between SVN and GIT is
that GIT would allow me to extract useful patches from a contributors GIT
repository.
If contributors have write access, then both SVN and GIT allow for erroneous
commits.
Now I do not want to _extract_ useful patches from contributors code.
It is up to contributors to carefully _prepare_ patches that are as
comprehensive as possible for me. Contributors who are sure
about what they are doing may commit themselves.
This does not withstand that _you_ may use GIT for maintaining a local copy
and preparing your patches. Max maintains a GIT mirror for this.
Best wishes, --Joris
_______________________________________________
Texmacs-dev mailing list
Texmacs-dev@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
_______________________________________________
Texmacs-dev mailing list
Texmacs-dev@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
_______________________________________________
Texmacs-dev mailing list
Texmacs-dev@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
