On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Asa Calow <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2009, at 11:48, Ciaran wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Tekin Suleyman <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> I find Git's command line to be very scary - but then again I very rarely >> use command line for SVN either. The best GUI I have found so far for OS X & >> Git is GitX - http://gitx.frim.nl/. Really made it a pleasure to work >> with Git. Still no-where near 100% comfortable with Git though. >> >> -D >> >> On 23/3/09 20:48, Ashley Moran wrote: >> >> On 23 Mar 2009, at 19:12, Ciaran wrote: >> >> >> >> Currently Git appears to be evil, it hurts my head, my commit logs >> on github are embarrasing at best <g> >> -cj. >> >> >> Last project I worked on where I couldn't choose my own SCM, I got to >> pick between SVN and git. I went with git on the basis that it'd let >> me work in a more atomic, darcs-like cherry-picking manner, rather >> than the "daily backup to subversion" strategy I was used to with >> SVN. After a few weeks trying to remember how to use the interface, I >> gave up and just started doing `git commit -a`. Git, I'm sorry to >> say, is to SCM as Gentoo is to Linux distros. Fine if you can figure >> out how the hell it works, not good if you want an easy way to manage >> source. >> >> >> Wow, sounds like a git talk is definitely a good call then! >> >> I can understand that people find the move to git from svn difficult, >> probably not helped by the lack of a decent GUI. But it really doesn't take >> much to get the hang of working at the command prompt. And once you do, you >> usually find that it's a much more powerful way of working. You only really >> need to learn a handful of commands, and with a couple of handy aliases >> you'll have done in a few key presses what would have taken a hell of a lot >> longer with a GUI. >> >> Having said all that, I have no experience of darcs, mercurial or bzr so >> looking forward to hearing all about them too - maybe I'll see the error of >> my ways! Either way, here's hoping I can help shed some light on the dark >> art of git to those that are interested. >> > I think I understand it reasonably well now (a suitable purchas of > Practical Version Control with Git from the pragmatic programmers helps ;) > )... but the thing that keeps getting me, is when I'm somehow working, but > not on a branch, and I commit... it lets me commit, I can see in the log > I've commited, bu t where to?! .. If I switch to my master then how do I get > my changes across, where've they gone ? > > > Yeah, this is where Git starts to get a bit scary :-) Essentially they've > gone on to a non-permanent branch which then gets orphaned at the point you > switch back to master. However (and this has saved my bacon more than a few > times) you can retrieve missing commits with 'git fsck --lost-found', > although you need to do a bit more manipulation with the returned list to > get to the actual commit messages.. > Oooo handy (and eek!) > > I've not tried the prag prog book but my recommendation for reading is the > Git Internals PDF from Peepcode - does a really good job of simplifying the > science! > I'll take a look thanks :) - cj. > > Asa > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NWRUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nwrug-members?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
