Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Apr 19, 2007, 21:00 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704192257520.8822@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <4627BCF0.3000004@midwinter.com>

Hi,

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Steven Grimm wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > Let me pick up the ball here. Once you did your share of conflicting 
> > merges, you _will_ realize how much better it is to merge when you are 
> > at a relatively stable state, i.e. you can test things (if only to 
> > make sure that the merge did not introduce strange side effects). And 
> > guess what, at such a stage I would commit anyway.
> 
> That's a great workflow if you're working on relatively discrete, 
> standalone changes. A lot of the time, when I'm working on an isolated 
> change, I do just that, and I merge when I'm stable just like you 
> describe. That's probably the vastly most common mode of operation for 
> distributed open-source projects, which obviously were git's initial 
> target audience.

It is also possible (and I do that) when merging often. I use cherry-pick for that. At a later stage, I merge, and this mostly succeeds, since the merge is really a 3-way merge (with the obvious results).

> And out of curiosity, are you using git for distributed, relatively 
> autonomous development, or for collaboration with a high level of 
> interdependency between developers?

I use Git virtually everywhere it can be used:

- backups
- personal projects
- configuration files
- documents
- collaboration with other people
- tracking CVS
- ...

Ciao, Dscho