Hi,
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, John Mandereau wrote:
> Till Rettig wrote:
>
> > Do I now understand right that when problems emerge the git pull will
> > save files under different names (or insert the problem signs, as you
> > had it) and then you have to change them and make git update-index on
> > the very file (this was in a message to Daniel T C. today). I think
> > this is also an important remark, these kind of difficulties will
> > probably appear to the beginner especially often. At least for me, if
> > I changed I file that was already there and made the commit nothing
> > happened. If I would git add it, then I get the mistake that the file
> > is already added. Only with update-index I had success. But this might
> > also be that my version of git is so old...
>
> See my last message to Daniel Tonda C. about too old Git/Cogito
> versions.
Yes, this is a real problem. And I think that it is a pity this difference
exists altogether (discussions revolve around cogito hiding the "index" of
git, where most users of git will not see the index at all). But I think
that the upcoming version of git will be a lot more user-friendly.
The thing to keep in mind is that you should only pull the upstream branch
when you committed _all_ of your changes. So, "git status" is a very
important command.
If you have conflicts, then these conflicts will be visible enclosed in
conflict markers ("<<<<", "====" and ">>>>"). To see if you resolved all
conflicts, just do a "git diff" to see if there are still conflict
markers. If there are no conflicts left, just do a "git commit -a" and it
will automagically commit all, as a merge.
> Anyway, I think I was wrong to tell you to pull with web/master as local
> name of the remote branch, whereas you may not already have this name.
> Johannes?
That is why I keep stressing that you should pull "web/master:web/master"
into your current branch, which should _not_ be named "web/master". If you
do that, not only will the upstream "web/master" be merged (this is the
left part, i.e. before the ":"), but the local branch "web/master" will be
updated to the upstream version (this is the right part).
> > So this update-index was the only thing I find still somehow important,
> > despite Johannes S. thinks it is not a good idea.
>
> It's not a bad idea, it's only more complicated. When resolving
> conflicts, I don't know if there are other ways than using update-index.
$ git commit -a
commits all changes (of files git knows about). I think this is really
easy, and telling people about update-index is only confusing.
Ciao,
Dscho
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
