Re: git pull opinion
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 07:38:41AM +0000, Alex Riesen wrote:
Show 28 quoted lines
> Pierre Habouzit, Tue, Nov 06, 2007 01:46:01 +0100:
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 12:36:16AM +0000, Bill Lear wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 5, 2007 at 15:33:31 (-0800) Junio C Hamano writes:
> > > > Stop thinking like "I need to integrate the changes from upstream
> > > > into my WIP to keep up to date."
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Once you get used to that, you would not have "a dirty directory"
> > > > problem.
> > >
> > > I respectfully beg to differ. I think it is entirely reasonable, and
> > > not a sign of "centralized" mindset, to want to pull changes others
> > > have made into your dirty repository with a single command.
> >
> > I agree, I have such needs at work. Here is how we (very informally)
> > work: people push things that they believe could help other (a new
> > helper function, a new module, a bug fix) in our master ASAP, but
> > develop big complex feature in their repository and merge into master
> > when it's ready.
> >
> > Very often we discuss some bugfix that is impeding people, or a
> > most-wanted-API. Someone does the work, commits, I often want to merge
> > master _directly_ into my current work-branch, because I want the
> > fix/new-API/... whatever.
>
> How about merging just that "fix/new-API/... whatever" thing and not
> the whole master, which should be a complete mess by now?
No master only holds simple patches (few of them, typically half a
dozen a day), or long-lived branches that are tested and ready to merge.
> The way you explained it it looks like typical centralized workflow.
Well I disagree, it's /part/ centralized. We have a two speed devel
method, one that works the old-centralized way for quick fixes, and a
more decentralized approach for big changes. It's a rather nice and
useful middle ground for a company where all programmers are within
earshot.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org