On Tuesday 08 February 2011, Arnold Krille wrote: > On Tuesday 08 February 2011 17:55:03 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > On Tuesday 08 February 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: > > > On Tuesday 08 February 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > > > - just throw away the merge with git reset --hard HEAD~1 and redo > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > after git pull-ing. preferably, you should have git rerere > > > > > enabled, so you won't have to repeat resolving any possible > > > > > conflicts. > > > > > > Excuse my ignorance... But what is "git rerere"? > > > > These emails are a clear sign to me that we need recommended workflows of > > how to do things... > > Excuse my ignorance(*), but when all that matters (things like releases) > happen in one central repository, why not just use a central repository > system that just doesn't allow all these ugly things? And maybe doesn't > have such a steep learning curve? > > Have fun, > > Arnold > > > (*) I have yet to see the advantage of fragmented (aka decentralized) > version control systems in general and git specially.
While I very much agree with you on the very steep learning curve, I have to say that every time I use "svn blame" and I end up on a "merged branch foo" huge commit, I curse at svn's inability to preserve branch history. This is one of the benefits of git, but it's the one that creates all this delicate issue of how to actually merge branches cleanly. This has nothing to do with decentralization. -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Sponsored by Nokia to work on KDE, incl. Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org). >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
