Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 19, 2007, 00:33 UTC
Message-ID: <f06d4m$3rs$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <462650A7.5030404@midwinter.com>

Steven Grimm wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Andy Parkins wrote:
>> svn update = git pull
>>   
> 
> That's not quite equivalent, and it's one of the biggest annoyances svn 
> users seem to have when starting up with git in my observation (having 
> gone through it myself and watched a few other people at my company do 
> so.) svn update will merge upstream changes into your locally edited but 
> not yet committed files. git pull will just complain if you have 
> uncommitted local edits to files that changed upstream.

In my opinion the update-then-commit workflow CVS and SVN forces on users is one of the more annoying features, forcing the user to resolve conflicts if he/she wants to be up-to-date.

The update-then-commit assumes that you merge on update local modifications with current server version, assuming that ancestor is current local committed version. This makes off-line committing impossible, and makes rare updates (server version advanced by more than one commit) unnecessary hard.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git