On Thursday 2006 December 14 23:46, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Don't worry; I've got thicker skin than that. I was simply amazed at my lack
of comprehension ability. :-)
Absolutely. I'd agree that only <newbranch> is worth even considering.
I find myself swayed by this. This is indeed something that happens to me a
lot. In certain circumstances I've been defeated by git because I couldn't
switch to the other branch to make that quick commit because my local changes
conflicted with that other branch. The solution I use is to commit the bug
fix in the wrong branch, finish my current on-topic commit then
rebase/reset/etc to put everything where it should be.
Yep. Although you've persuaded me with the above example, I think this is the
correct path. It's not wise to add every bell and whistle just because we
can. As long as there is /a/ way to achieve every task, that's good enough,
we don't need every way to achieve every task. We might even argue that
git's flexibility is what makes it harder to learn. It's similar to UNIX in
that respect - hard to learn, easy to use.
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIEE
andyparkins@gmail.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html