Re: Workflow question

[Russ Brown <pickscrape@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Russ Brown <pickscrape@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> I keep reading things similar to this and bit by bit I'm starting to get
>> it. :) I suppose this is one case in which it's definitely a
>> disadvantage to have a good understanding of svn before coming to git...
>>
>> <yoda>You must unlearn what you have learned</yoda>
> 
> You do not have to unlearn; if Jeff truly unlearned he wouldn't
> have spotted you were trapped in SVN mentality.  You just need
> to learn there could be other ways ;-).
> 

I suppose what I really mean is you need to stop assuming what you've
already learned. :)

>> If you delete a branch that has commits on it that aren't referenced by
>> any other branches, will those commits be removed by something like git
>> pack or git gc?
> 
> Yes, eventually.
> 
>> I suppose what has me the most confused is how a developer works with a
>> remote branch: I've come to understand that a developer should never
>> check out and work on a remote branch, and always create a local one and
>> work on that. If he does that using the above hierarchy, there then
>> becomes main->projectX->featureY->jeff_local_branch_of_featureY. Or is
>> is possible for a developer to work directory on a remote branch?
> 
> The statement in the last sentence does not make any sense.
> Remote is called remote because it is remote and supposed to be
> out of reach ;-)
> 

Ah. I think I was a little confused by the fact that git does let you
checkout remote branches, through I see that it does warn you about it
when you do it.

> More seriously, remotes are used as reference points so if you
> "work directly on them", you cannot use them as reference points
> any more; you defeat the sole purpose of existence of remotes.
> 
> You can work _without_ using remote tracking branches, but that
> is mostly for merge based workflow.  It appears that you are
> leaning towards rebase-heavy workflow, so I do not think it is
> applicable to your project.

Right, I think we're going to be aiming for that, though as I say I'm
going to be experimenting a bit to see how things work when using both
approaches.

Thanks.

-- 

Russ