On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Adam Treat <atr...@rim.com> wrote: > There is nothing about git that forces you to have multiple branches > locally. Good practice, yes, but nothing forcing it. As for the > difficulty of resolving conflicts between patches you've made locally and > changes made on the shared repository since you started making your local > patches... nothing about git makes this any harder. Unless you have a lock > based source control system you'll have to resolve conflicts.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Joe Mason <jma...@rim.com> wrote: > It seems to me that there's no need to use multiple local branches in git > if you find it confusing - it's an additional feature, but I don't see > anything that requires it. > > What workflow do you have that requires you to have multiple branches > locally in git, and how do you solve it in svn without using branches? > > What precisely do you find difficult about merging remote changes, and how > is the svn equivalent easier? The simplicity. In git, I have to worry about things like committing local changes before rebasing to master, or stashing, etc... In svn, all I have to do is to run "svn up". - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
