From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:11:59 -0700 Message-ID: <7vy7kpaz9s.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <200704171818.28256.andyparkins@gmail.com> <8b65902a0704180540l721b9b1dj6f6e068f0d7e5119@mail.gmail.com> <200704181426.29969.andyparkins@gmail.com> <462650A7.5030404@midwinter.com> <4626C4B9.1040707@midwinter.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org To: Steven Grimm X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 19 04:12:10 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HeM7y-0000Gh-RH for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 04:12:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2993106AbXDSCMD (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:12:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2993107AbXDSCMD (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:12:03 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao103.cox.net ([68.230.241.43]:33716 "EHLO fed1rmmtao103.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2993106AbXDSCMA (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:12:00 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao103.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070419021200.PUKH1226.fed1rmmtao103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:12:00 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id oqC01W0011kojtg0000000; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:12:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4626C4B9.1040707@midwinter.com> (Steven Grimm's message of "Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:24:09 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Steven Grimm writes: > And in particular -- this being the original topic of the thread -- > when an svn user sees me doing that, they do not immediately think of > the fact that merging between immutable revisions may have some > benefits. They see me typing four commands (commit, fetch, rebase, > reset) to do the same thing they can do in one command with svn, and > conclude that git is harder to use. No arguments there. While I know I will never use such a workflow myself, I think it makes sense to _allow_ local changes to be merged to the new revision if the user chooses to use such a workflow. The necessary places to change are limited to the Porcelain-ish layer, and adding '-m' option to "git pull", just like "git checkout" has the corresponding option to allow merging local changes, should not be a rocket science. In fact, I vaguely recall keeping a couple of patches to do so in 'pu' several months ago, perhaps for a few weeks. Maybe git has matured too much. In earlier days, people complained about lack of features and existence of misfeatures, and bashed the maintainer with patches. These days, the bashing is done with more words and less patches.