Re: Data Integrity & un-Commited Branches

From: Brian Scott Dobrovodsky <brian@pontech.com>
Date: Sep 15, 2007, 06:24 UTC
Message-ID: <2a8a071a0709142324i29a863b7x8c164a589c1f1f9a@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070915025129.GY3099@spearce.org>

Show 9 quoted lines

> My point is just that some people actually assume that work done
> while having one branch checked out is related to that branch and
> that branch alone and that switching a branch should put that work
> on hold.  Unfortunately for me some of these people at day-job have
> also just assumed Git can read their mind and forget to switch
> branches at the proper times, resulting in unrelated work mashed
> together for days straight (and criss-crossed merge to hell and back)
> before they call me and say "MAKEITWORKNOW".
> </rant>

As I have learned over the years, assumptions can be fatal. I can not use something until I wrap my head around it and test it. Especially for managing something in production! So far, this has been the only problem/mis-understanding.

Show 5 quoted lines

> It isn't unreasonable to want Git to save uncommitted work for the
> current branch and then you switch to another, ending up with a
> clean working directory when you finally get there.  Today we have
> git-stash to help you with this, but I'm thinking maybe we want to
> connect git-checkout with it?

That would be great as a default action when using checkout! +Switching branches without having to commit improves work flow. +Fewer commits = cleaner logs. +More Intuitive!

I am currently using git-1.5.1.6, which apparently does not have git-stash. I will upgrade and check it out.

Cheers,

-- 
Brian Scott Dobrovodsky