Git Is Simpler Than You Think

Post by mkl » Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 12:59 AM UTC

adobriyan wrote: post #61

barrkel wrote: post #41

The whole "downloading history of the repository onto your machine" thing about git is what makes it unworkable where I work. A normal checkout from SVN is over 3GB in size just for our team's tree. There are a number of binaries that get pulled in and updated for various reasons (SDKs, platform-specific binaries) and they are versioned for repeatable and automatable builds across branches, all self-contained with mi…

git-clone --depth 1

Post by Timothee » Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 1:23 AM UTC

fr0sty wrote: post #79

ph0rque wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good advice. I would add the following use case: # Oh no! Those changes should have been on their own branch, not dev... git stash git checkout -b changes_on_their_own_branch git stash apply git commit -a

That is overly verbose. Try this: git checkout -b changes_on_their_own_branch git commit -a You can always create a new branch at HEAD (where you are currently) and switch to it without having to stash. On the other hand, stashing may be required if you wanted your branch to start elsewhere: git checkout -b changes_branch start_point

Post by skimbrel » Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 2:09 AM UTC

Timothee wrote: post #93

fr0sty wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is overly verbose. Try this: git checkout -b changes_on_their_own_branch git commit -a You can always create a new branch at HEAD (where you are currently) and switch to it without having to stash. On the other hand, stashing may be required if you wanted your branch to start elsewhere: git checkout -b changes_branch start_point

But doesn't git stop you from switching to another branch when there are uncommitted changes?

Post by mikeash » Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 2:28 AM UTC

MetaMan wrote: post #96

mikeash wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git is intended as a tool for programmers, which are precisely those "mechanics" he mentions. Any programmer who's scared away by that doesn't understand what they do.

Err - Maybe we just resent having to spend so much time on the mechanics of the tool/s rather than our main activity which is writing code.

Post by natep » Thu, Sep 08, 2011, 3:26 AM UTC

watmough wrote: post #54

schleyfox wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found git to make a lot more sense personally after reading http://eagain.net/articles/git-for-computer-scientists/ . The git parable is also very good.

So if I have branched from master, onto experimental, and made several experimental changes that I want to actually use, then I can simply type: git merge master git branch master from the tip of my experimental branch, and master will be moved up to the tip of the tree?