On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote:
> 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". > I wonder, do you really run svn up that much? I'd expect that this breaks your checkout every now and then if some dependencies change. I usually run update-webkit, which should hide the rebasing actions from you -jochen > - Ryosuke > > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
