yet another workflow question...

> Sorry for cluttering up the list with yet another very basic workflow
> question, but I'm still struggling with finding an answer to the
> burning question, "What can git do for me?"  (So far, I have come to
> the conclusion that, for my simple, single developer, branchless,
> linear projects, there's not much that git can do for me that any
> other SCM could do for me.  It appears to have been designed to solve
> problems for which I have absolutely no appreciation whatsoever. :-))
>
> Anyway, on to basic newbie quesion #107...
>
> I've been working on my project and I realize that I have 3-4 files
> modified with two orthogonal sets of changes.  (I didn't realize this
> until I said to myself -- "Self, I should really check in these files
> before I go too much further down this path".)  So I start "git
> diff"-ing the files and I find that most files have differences
> related to only one change or the other, but one file has differences
> related to both changes.
>
> What do others do in this situation?
> a) Not allow themselves to get into this situation in the first place
> by careful planning?
>
> b) Copy the file to "file.bothchanges", edit out one set of changes,
> commit that with one log message, edit back in the other set of
> changes, edit in the other set of changes, commit that with another
> log message?
>
> c) Use some sort of automation to do option (b) for them?
>
> d) Something else?

> "Patrick Doyle" <wpdster@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Sorry for cluttering up the list with yet another very basic workflow
>> question, but I'm still struggling with finding an answer to the
>> burning question, "What can git do for me?"  (So far, I have come to
>> the conclusion that, for my simple, single developer, branchless,
>> linear projects, there's not much that git can do for me that any
>> other SCM could do for me.  It appears to have been designed to solve
>> problems for which I have absolutely no appreciation whatsoever. :-))
>>
>> Anyway, on to basic newbie quesion #107...
>>
>> I've been working on my project and I realize that I have 3-4 files
>> modified with two orthogonal sets of changes.  (I didn't realize this
>> until I said to myself -- "Self, I should really check in these files
>> before I go too much further down this path".)  So I start "git
>> diff"-ing the files and I find that most files have differences
>> related to only one change or the other, but one file has differences
>> related to both changes.
>>
>> What do others do in this situation?
>> a) Not allow themselves to get into this situation in the first place
>> by careful planning?
>>
>> b) Copy the file to "file.bothchanges", edit out one set of changes,
>> commit that with one log message, edit back in the other set of
>> changes, edit in the other set of changes, commit that with another
>> log message?
>>
>> c) Use some sort of automation to do option (b) for them?
>>
>> d) Something else?
>
> git-add -i

> I've been working on my project and I realize that I have 3-4 files
> modified with two orthogonal sets of changes.  (I didn't realize this
> until I said to myself -- "Self, I should really check in these files
> before I go too much further down this path".)  So I start "git
> diff"-ing the files and I find that most files have differences
> related to only one change or the other, but one file has differences
> related to both changes.
> 
> What do others do in this situation?
> a) Not allow themselves to get into this situation in the first place
> by careful planning?
> 
> b) Copy the file to "file.bothchanges", edit out one set of changes,
> commit that with one log message, edit back in the other set of
> changes, edit in the other set of changes, commit that with another
> log message?
> 
> c) Use some sort of automation to do option (b) for them?
> 
> d) Something else?

> Sorry for cluttering up the list with yet another very basic workflow
> question, but I'm still struggling with finding an answer to the
> burning question, "What can git do for me?"  (So far, I have come to
> the conclusion that, for my simple, single developer, branchless,
> linear projects, there's not much that git can do for me that any
> other SCM could do for me.  It appears to have been designed to solve
> problems for which I have absolutely no appreciation whatsoever. :-))

> On Thursday 2007 October 11, Patrick Doyle wrote:
> 
>> burning question, "What can git do for me?"  (So far, I have come to
>> the conclusion that, for my simple, single developer, branchless,
>> linear projects, there's not much that git can do for me that any
>> other SCM could do for me.  It appears to have been designed to solve
> 
> Here's a few things that are relevant to a simple, single, branchless, linear 
> developer:
> 
>  - Fast.  Git wipes the floor with everything else, so much so that the SCM
>    becomes a tool in itself, not just a recorder of history.  I keep my own
>    simple projects in git just as much as my complicated, branchy, team-based
>    projects just to get the following tools fast:
>     git-diff
>     git-status
>     git-commit
>     git-log
> 
>  - Small.  In every project I've converted from SVN to git, the diskspace
>    usage has gone down.  SVN peppers the working tree with .svn directories,
>    each of which contains a pristine copy of the last checked in version of
>    all the working files.  On top of that is the repository disk space itself.
> 
>    Git on the other hand keeps one .git directory at the top of the tree and
>    that stores the _entire_ repository.  It is, in my experience, smaller than
>    the working tree.  That means that git uses less diskspace than svn does
>    for a single checkout to store everything it needs.
> 
>  - Useful.  The following are so good, that even if you weren't doing any 
>    revision tracking you'd still want to use them:
>     git-grep
>     git-diff
> 
>  - Backup.  Backing up subversion repositories requires that you write
>    yourself a script that uses svnadmin dump.  With git I just write a couple
>    of lines in my .git/config and then git-push produces a highly compact
>    backup whenever I want.  Even better, if a disaster happens it's easy to
>    pull stuff out of that backup without any additional operations.
> 
>  - Mobility.  This one is a bit distributed, but I hope you'll let me have it. 
>    I often do work on my desktop at home, my desktop at work and my laptop. 
>    By setting my remotes up correctly in git it's really easy to walk to
>    another system and pick up exactly where I left off from the other
>    computer.  More importantly though, when you accidentally make changes in
>    two places, there is no danger of data loss.
> 
> Even if you aren't doing complicated stuff, git is the way to go.  I can't 
> count the number of ways it's made me more productive and enhanced the code I 
> write and the documentation of its development.  If I never worked on another 
> group project again I would still use git all day every day.
> 

>  - Mobility.  This one is a bit distributed, but I hope you'll let   
> me have it.
>    I often do work on my desktop at home, my desktop at work and my laptop.
>    By setting my remotes up correctly in git it's really easy to walk to
>    another system and pick up exactly where I left off from the other
>    computer.  More importantly though, when you accidentally make changes in
>    two places, there is no danger of data loss.

> Quoting Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>:
> >  - Mobility.  This one is a bit distributed, but I hope you'll let
> > me have it.
> >    I often do work on my desktop at home, my desktop at work and my
> > laptop. By setting my remotes up correctly in git it's really easy to
> > walk to another system and pick up exactly where I left off from the
> > other computer.  More importantly though, when you accidentally make
> > changes in two places, there is no danger of data loss.
>
> To extend on this point, after picking up the randomly checked-in save
> point on another computer, the save point itself can be easily
> git-reset'ed.  So there won't be commits like "it's utter broken but i
> got to go home" polluting the history.  I find that extremely handy.