Re: Workflow question
- From
- Russ Brown <pickscrape@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 26, 2007, 00:01 UTC
- Message-ID
- <46F9A13E.4000608@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vabra5tah.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Russ Brown <pickscrape@gmail.com> writes: > >> I keep reading things similar to this and bit by bit I'm starting to get >> it. :) I suppose this is one case in which it's definitely a >> disadvantage to have a good understanding of svn before coming to git... >> >> <yoda>You must unlearn what you have learned</yoda> > > You do not have to unlearn; if Jeff truly unlearned he wouldn't > have spotted you were trapped in SVN mentality. You just need > to learn there could be other ways ;-). >
I suppose what I really mean is you need to stop assuming what you've already learned. :)
Show 17 quoted lines
>> If you delete a branch that has commits on it that aren't referenced by >> any other branches, will those commits be removed by something like git >> pack or git gc? > > Yes, eventually. > >> I suppose what has me the most confused is how a developer works with a >> remote branch: I've come to understand that a developer should never >> check out and work on a remote branch, and always create a local one and >> work on that. If he does that using the above hierarchy, there then >> becomes main->projectX->featureY->jeff_local_branch_of_featureY. Or is >> is possible for a developer to work directory on a remote branch? > > The statement in the last sentence does not make any sense. > Remote is called remote because it is remote and supposed to be > out of reach ;-) >
Ah. I think I was a little confused by the fact that git does let you checkout remote branches, through I see that it does warn you about it when you do it.
Show 8 quoted lines
> More seriously, remotes are used as reference points so if you > "work directly on them", you cannot use them as reference points > any more; you defeat the sole purpose of existence of remotes. > > You can work _without_ using remote tracking branches, but that > is mostly for merge based workflow. It appears that you are > leaning towards rebase-heavy workflow, so I do not think it is > applicable to your project.
Right, I think we're going to be aiming for that, though as I say I'm going to be experimenting a bit to see how things work when using both approaches.
Thanks.
-- Russ