Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

>> In my opinion the update-then-commit workflow CVS and SVN forces on users
>> is one of the more annoying features, forcing the user to resolve conflicts
>> if he/she wants to be up-to-date.
>>   
> 
> I'm not eager to jump to svn's defense -- there's a reason I'm using git 
> and trying to get my coworkers to do the same -- but how does git allow 
> you to stay up to date without resolving conflicts? Granted that git is 
> smarter about resolving certain kinds of conflicts automatically, but 
> fundamentally if the latest revision you've pulled down (from any kind 
> of version control system) makes a change that conflicts with a local 
> change (whether or not you've committed it locally first) you're going 
> to have to resolve it by hand, yes?

> Also, last I checked, git wouldn't let me push into a branch that had 
> revisions I hadn't yet pulled down. Isn't that just another way of 
> enforcing an update-then-commit workflow? If anything, svn wins in that 
> area -- it allows me to commit without updating as long as my change 
> doesn't touch any files that have changed upstream.
> 
> One can argue about whether allowing partial commits like that is a good 
> idea, but it's just not true that svn forces you to always update before 
> you commit, and if you're pushing into a branch that other people are 
> also updating, the ability to commit files that didn't change upstream 
> means it is actually *less* insistent on update-then-commit than git is 
> (if you take "commit" to mean "commit-and-push" on the git side as was 
> suggested in the message I replied to originally.)
> 
> Unless, of course, I'm misinterpreting you here.