Re: question concerning branches
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 19, 2009, 20:01 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200908192201.36383.jnareb@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <4a8c51f5@wupperonline.de>
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Ingo Brueckl wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes: > > > You finish old work (or stash it away), _then_ you begin new work. > > Ok, this helps me a little bit to understand. > > The branches aren't designed to split my work, but rather something to > collect the different parts of my work.
Well, git is flexible enough that it can support also the workflow you tried to use.
Namely you can have many working directories tied to single repository (each of those checkouts should be of different branch). You can use git-new-workdir script from contrib/worktree for that. Then to switch branches you would just cd to appropriate directory (and keep unsaved changes and untracked files). That said it is [much] less used workflow.
> But as software development often is something where you are coding on > several issues at the same time which can't be committed immediately, > it sounds that 'stash' is the developer's best friend.
Well, you can also commit and then clean up history with interactive rebase (or patch management interface such as StGit or Guilt). In distributed version control systems like Git the act of publishing changes is separate from the act of committing them (you should not rewrite published history, though).
-- Jakub Narebski Poland