On Thursday 08 March 2012 17:12:47 Ryosuke Niwa 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".
"git pull" does the same (if no conflicts were found, but the same pain will happen on svn in case of conflicts) or "git fetch origin; git rebase origin/master" I remember the days were I switched from svn to git, blaming git for force me to type additional commands, today I'm just regrets for the blames and can't think in another VCS than git :-). > - Ryosuke -- Hugo Parente Lima INdT - Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
