Re: pull into dirty working tree

From: Michael Dressel <michaeltilodressel@t-online.de>
Date: Jun 13, 2007, 17:31 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706131916270.5241@castor.milkiway.cos>
In-Reply-To: <18032.3836.710438.73912@lisa.zopyra.com>

Hi,

but even if they just play with the code. Why not always commit? As long as they don't push nobody else will be affected.

Even if you play with the code it's useful to go back to earlier versions. Why would you not want to benefit from this possibility?

So this would really only be two commands the commit and the pull command.

I hope I didn't miss your point completely.

Cheers Michael

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Bill Lear wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> On Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 17:03:58 (+0200) MichaelTiloDressel@t-online.de writes:
> >Hi,
> >
> >why don't they just do a simple 
> >git commit -a
> >of their work before pulling?
> 
> Because they are basically playing with some code and don't want to
> commit it.
> 
> >That's different to cvs! Committing only affects the cloned repository.
> 
> Yup, we realize that.
> 
> >I think one of the biggest advantages of git is the concept of everyone
> >working on a clone. So developers are not prevented from actually using
> >revision control just because they are afraid of disturbing others. They
> >don't until they e.g. push!
> 
> Right, but they just want updates to their working tree, as they could
> do under CVS, without issuing five (or even one) other commands.
> 
> 
> Bill
>