On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 08:42:34AM +0800, JonY wrote: > On 4/26/2014 07:27, Andrey Repin wrote: > > This is exactly what makes me dislike it strongly. This, and idiotic model > > of > > copying whole repository to my machine, when I only want to glance at the > > source code, and find the culprit of my current issues. > > I've spent 3 hours downloading a 200Mb repo of a project, where the > > Subversion > > client pulled 4 or 5Mb HEAD of it in like 10 minutes, once I realized what > > an > > idiotic weight I pulled and went to google to see if it can be done better. > > And "fine control" doesn't mix with "project consistency" at all. > > Subversion is aimed at versioning of a whole project, in a supposedly > > consistent state at each version. What can be more "fine" than this, is > > beyond > > my understanding. > > git clone --depth 1 if you don't care about history. > > > You can still commit separate files from working copy, though, but this > > practice is discouraged for the greater good of the project you develop. > > > > Don't you need to git add individual files to mark for commit? Won't you > get into the same problems if you forgot to commit files in SVN? > > > "git commit -a" commits modified files without the need to add them first. You always have to add new files.
-- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
