Am 16.03.2012 09:32, schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Lars advices are probably too complicated for you. Git is complicated
only if you want to. Please follow this simple workflow and all will
be well:
# create a new branch 'uwe'
I already did that, but I don't understand why I do need this for e.g. changes
to the docs.
# You notice some new features in master that you want to test, so
merge 'master' onto your 'uwe' branch:
git merge master
git commit
# You think your branch is good now and worth being merged to
'master'. Bug Vincent or Richard about it: they will do the merge into
master for you. After a while, if Vincent or Richard allows you and
you are more comfortable with git maybe you could merge directly to
'master' yourself.
Why am I no longer allowed to commit?
I don't understand the benefit of this complicated branching procedure. I already developed
something in the master checkout. Vincent changes something in the meantime and after updating my
master, his changes were automatically merged with mines - exactly as with SVN. So why do I need to
work in a separate branch if I nevertheless have to merge with the master? I mean my master branch
is already my developing branch. Every refreshing of it will merge my changes with it so can test
if my things compile.
For some bigger new features a separate branch is of course useful and I also used this in the past
in SVN. But for every small thing like e.g. a new section in a documentation file I feels this as
"shooting with a canon onto sparrows" (as we say in German).
thanks and regards
Uwe
