Joel Rees <joel.r...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 3:43 AM, lee <l...@yun.yagibdah.de> wrote: >> Joel Rees <joel.r...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Well, your experience with git and mine are quite different. >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:15 PM, lee <l...@yun.yagibdah.de> wrote: >>>> Joel Rees <joel.r...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> [...] >>> >>> Let's clear the conversation, it's too cluttered for me to make sense >>> of it any more. >>> >>> cd to your local copy of the repository you want to do some work in. >>> Try these two commands: >>> >>> git log >> >> >> [~/inst/emacs/emacs-git/emacs] git log >> >> ,---- >> | commit f0aeb3ae50be0f96cefa391c8483d8be9f81d9f9 >> | Merge: 4dbf5c2 9ce4cf2 >> | Author: lee <l...@yun.yagibdah.de> >> | Date: Sun Aug 31 18:47:54 2014 +0200 >> | >> | Merge branch 'master' of git://git.savannah.gnu.org/emacs >> | >> | [...] >> `---- >> >> >>> git branch --list -ar >> >> ,---- >> | [~/inst/emacs/emacs-git/emacs] git branch --list -ar >> | origin/HEAD -> origin/master >> | [...] >> | [~/inst/emacs/emacs-git/emacs] >> `---- >> >>> What do they tell you? >> >> That it's been a while since I did a 'git pull'? > > Well, that, too. > > What do > > git status
,---- | [~/inst/emacs/emacs-git/emacs] git status | On branch master | Your branch and 'origin/master' have diverged, | and have 9 and 78 different commits each, respectively. | (use "git pull" to merge the remote branch into yours) | | Untracked files: | (use "git add <file>..." to include in what will be committed) | [...] `---- > > and > > git diff > > give you? ,---- | [~/inst/emacs/emacs-git/emacs] git diff | [~/inst/emacs/emacs-git/emacs] `---- If there were diffs shown, only the local diffs would show up. > Mind you, Linus himself says that git is stupid, and he prefers it > that way. Being stupid in such a case isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless it doesn't make sense anymore. It doesn't make sense to consider a repo as remote when that very repo was "born" by 'git init' on my computer. I might push it to a remote site, and that still doesn't make it a remote repo. It would have to be a remote repo for anyone else who clones it. Yet since git is distributed, there are merely copies (clones), and there is no such thing as a "remote repo". There are only clones. That git has any notion or concept of "remote" whatsoever makes it contradictory to itself. Linus must have been stupid himself to introduce a self-contradictory concept into git. That's not a problem of git. Why doesn't it use the concept of clones (copies) instead? It seems to be an essential thing to git that there are copies, regardless of /where/ they are, and that would be straightforward. Every copy is local. Assuming instead that even the local copy is something remote is just retarded. > Did you catch the part where git is explained as more of a backing > store than a source code control system? That means when you use git, > you get to do more of the "code management" and "team management" > using external processes and tools. No --- but perhaps that's one of the things because of which I like it. I never got along with any of the other systems. -- Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87ppephj01....@yun.yagibdah.de
