I think it is pretty much what stash does, but it creates a named shelved
change set that stays locally and that can be viewd from a list. You can
create as many as you need and you can unshelve the entire change set,
destroying it or not, or only part of it, even only one change from a
method.
ht
No I do not know it, how does it work?
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Vitor Medina Cruz
wrote:
> Yes, I agree on the case of fake commit, I prefer your usage of git. In
> the case of stash, I prefer Intellij shelve feature, do you know it? I
> think it helps me organize better than the stash, I
Yes, I agree on the case of fake commit, I prefer your usage of git. In the
case of stash, I prefer Intellij shelve feature, do you know it? I think it
helps me organize better than the stash, I use it all the time.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Nicolas Passerini
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Vitor Medina Cruz
wrote:
> My two cents: having different images for branches is a good workaround,
> but I will have to manually control those images, while git abstracts this
> a little since I have a way to tell it to stash and bring back work in
> progress. Dep
My two cents: having different images for branches is a good workaround,
but I will have to manually control those images, while git abstracts this
a little since I have a way to tell it to stash and bring back work in
progress. Depending on the project, I think loading a new image with a
fresh HEA
Hi Holger, I think that both patterns are currently supported (in beta
version), but maybe we do not use exactly the same tools.
First, Iceberg does not use the concept of "stash". The git stash changes
the file in your git working copy (on your file system), while your
(modified) code is not ther
> Le 12 sept. 2016 à 22:20, Stephan Eggermont a écrit :
>
> On 12/09/16 21:51, Christophe Demarey wrote:
>> I think your scenario is not covered by Iceberg. It could be a nice feature
>> but not one of the most important.
>
> Why do you think so?
In my mind, the top priorities are to have a U
On 12/09/16 21:51, Christophe Demarey wrote:
I think your scenario is not covered by Iceberg. It could be a nice feature but
not one of the most important.
Why do you think so?
Stephan
Hi Holger,
I think your scenario is not covered by Iceberg. It could be a nice feature but
not one of the most important. Nicolas will answer but I think he focuses on
most common scenarios.
In my case, what I miss is to be able to choose what I want to commit. Nicolas
already planned to add th
Hi Holger
I will let nicolas reply detail.
Now Iceberg is not equals to git.
For that you can already take gitfiletree (whatever is its name) and
your command line tool and do what you want.
What would be the reason to duplicate git in Pharo? Exposing all the
complexity of git to pharo?
Iceb
Hi,
I am a heavy git user with languages like C, C++, Python, Ruby and even GNU
Smalltalk and I hope iceberg will bring the same powerful experience to Pharo.
Last Friday I started to add a bigger refactoring for a new feature to my
software and didn't finish. Sadly today an issue in the code w
11 matches
Mail list logo
