On 2014-09-16 13:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote:
"Frank Millman" <fr...@chagford.com>:
You are encouraged to make liberal use of 'branches',
Personally, I only use forks, IOW, "git clone". I encourage that
practice. Then, there is little need for "git checkout". Instead, I just
cd to a different directory.
Branches and clones are highly analogous processwise; I would go so far
as to say that they are redundant.
But rather than listening to, shall we say, *strange* advice like
this, Frank, you'll do well to pick up a reliable git tutorial, which
should explain branches, commits, the working tree, etc, etc, etc.
Isn't this "strange advice" standard operating procedure in Mercurial? I'm
not an expert on either hg or git, but if I've understood hg correctly, the
way to begin an experimental branch is to use hg clone.
Yes, but this is due to different design decisions of git and Mercurial. git
prioritized the multiple branches in a single clone use case; Mercurial
prioritized re-cloning. It's natural to do this kind of branching in git, and
more natural to re-clone in Mercurial.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
