Re: pull into dirty working tree

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Jun 14, 2007, 14:25 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.99.0706141014320.5651@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <4670F6FD.4060704@midwinter.com>

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Steven Grimm wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> You can view this in terms of being a leg up for people who *do* want to use
> git, but are in environments where they are unable to convince or force
> everyone else to adopt git-style workflows. I think it's telling that almost
> all the discussions about this kind of feature are of the form, "I'm trying to
> convince my team to use git, and they find it no good because of X." It's the
> person trying to sell git to the group, presumably so they can use it
> themselves without having to go through a CVS or Subversion or p4 gateway,
> that this stuff really helps. That the rest of the team will benefit down the
> road too is nice but probably not the immediate selfish personal goal of the
> people who are asking for this kind of feature.

Personally, I think there is a point where it isn't worth trying to convert the world. If people consider GIT bad and unwilling to use it because of X or Z then they probably better stay with CVS. There is a limit to how backward bending should GIT do to accomodate everyone, especially if it is about compromize in its usage model just to make life easier for people who want to preserve their inferior work flow.

This being said, I don't claim to have a particular opinion about the issue discussed in this thread. Simply that things should be decided on a technical basis and be justified with good arguments. Saying that "I can't convince my co-workers to use GIT if it doesn't do X" is _not_ a good argument.

Nicolas