From: Hallvard Breien Furuseth Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 23:04:24 GMT Subject: Re: Newbie grief Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FA2CC88.9000207@palm.com> On Thu, 03 May 2012 11:20:56 -0700, Rich Pixley wrote: > On 5/3/12 09:08 , Hallvard Breien Furuseth wrote: >> Aha, now this thread finally makes some sense. So when Rich >> wants a "branch" with several tips, he actually wants several >> Git clones (repositories) with the same Git branch checked out - >> and some of them with local commits to it. > Yes. >> And these commits can be shared as remote branches between the >> clones, which in Hg-speak means that in one particular clone, >> Git will "bookmark" the other clones' tips. > Well, no. In hg, these are all managed. So there's no scaling > issue. They can all push/pull together, since they are really all > just one shared branch. Adding a new repository to the mix is > trivial. And either pushes or pulls can be used, or any combo. > > With git, I must manually make space for each and every repository, > manually track which set of changes are where, manually track which > need to be merged, and manually track which repositories are looking > at which git branches so that they don't collide, or only collide in > the current repository and only when I'm prepared to merge them. > (...) If you say so. I don't know Hg and I'm not about to try to guess if you're stuck in another misconception about Git or not, nor to re-read this entire thread substituting "clone" for "branch". Anyway, I notice you're now giving practical Hg examples to go with your Hg vocabulary instead talking Git in Hg vocabulary, so hopefully this'll get cleared up. Anyway, if you have not done so already: If you show this too with a practical Hg example instead of talking Git in a Hg vocabulary, maybe someone can help. -- Hallvard