Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> You can't *not* mention branches, simply because even people who only 
> track other peoples work do end up often needing to know about it, or at 
> least hearing about them..

Well, there is the classical case of an upstream which never merges from 
you, John R. Developer. You have two branches, upstream and local. But Jim 
R. Developer did not work with Git before, just CVS. To Jim, these are not 
two branches. Still, Git operations are easy, and Jim does not have to 
understand branches to track upstream (keeping local changes).

That is a very valid use scenario, at least from my point of view, since I 
use it quite often.

As an example, for me, "next" is upstream, and I keep some changes local, 
either because Junio refused to merge them, or because they are useful to 
nobody except me.

Of course, these _are_ two branches, but I don't have to realize that when 
working with Git in that manner.

Ciao,
Dscho