Hi Evan, 2014-02-26 20:36 GMT+01:00 Evan Huus <eapa...@gmail.com>: > For a quick introduction to git concepts I found Git for Computer > Scientists [1] to also be quite helpful. It assumes you have a basic > working knowledge of things like Directed Acyclic Graphs but it gives > a good understanding of the underlying algorithms and is much shorter > than Pro Git. > > [1] http://eagain.net/articles/git-for-computer-scientists/ This is a nice and "brief intro" to git, but to actually work with git you need some explanation like [4] with properly put example commands.
[4] http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Basics-Undoing-Things Cheers, Balint > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Bálint Réczey <bal...@balintreczey.hu> wrote: >> 2014-02-26 10:30 GMT+01:00 Joerg Mayer <jma...@loplof.de>: >>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 09:51:13AM +0100, Joerg Mayer wrote: >>>> I sent the sample workflow for two reasons: >>>> 1) Receive feedback whether I did something "stupid" (aka newbie error) >>>> 2) Start creating a little bit of help for newbies >>> >>> Attached a revised version on how I'd like to go forward. The quicker we >>> have the workflows the less time consuming things are going to get for >>> others :-) >>> >>> Ciao >>> Jörg >>> >>> >>> This idea of the file is to collect example workflows to make >>> it easier getting started with git/gerrit. >> From my experience (giving trainings on git/gerrit and observing other >> trainers and trainees) the most efficient way of learning Git + Gerrit based >> collaboration is reading Pro Git [1] then the Gerrit intro [2] . This is what >> is suggested by our WorkFlow page [3]. >> >> Other means like trying to start with incomplete, examples-based >> quick-intros gave early satisfaction and long struggling to many people >> I could observe thanks to misunderstanding or not seeing the concepts >> behind the commands. >> >> Please don't create traps for people less experienced with git/gerrit. >> >> Let me ask this question: After reading through [1] and [2] carefully which >> question(s) arising during contributing to Wireshark remained not answered? >> Those could be good additions to the Q&A section of [3]. >> >> Thanks, >> Balint >> >> [1] http://git-scm.com/book >> [2] https://code.wireshark.org/review/Documentation/intro-quick.html >> [3] http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Workflow >> >> >>> >>> Once we have covered the most important use cases this file should >>> a) be moved to either wiki.wireshark.org or the wsdg >>> b) be enhanced by linking to or including screenshots of the gerrit >>> GUI >>> >>> Please improve this file by adding >>> - ideas to the toc >>> - Filling in items from the toc >>> - corrections/enhancements to existing examples >>> >>> TOC >>> === >>> - Modify a file, submit change >>> - TODO: Modify a file, submit change, change file then resubmit >>> - TODO: Modify a file, submit change then drop the change >>> - .... >>> >>> Modify a file >>> ============= >>> - Create a new branch called 'newsupdate' (git checkout) >>> - Modify ./NEWS (vi) >>> - Check whether there are other changes (git status, optional) >>> - Submit to the local git repository (git commit) >>> - Submit the changes for review (git review) >>> - Review and submit my own change (gerrit review) >>> ["Normal" users: Wait for this to happen] >>> - Switch back to development master (git checkout) >>> - Delete the development branch (git branch) >>> >>> jmayer@egg:~/work/wireshark/git(master)> git checkout -b newsupdate >>> Switched to a new branch 'newsupdate' >>> jmayer@egg:~/work/wireshark/git(newsupdate)> vi NEWS >>> jmayer@egg:~/work/wireshark/git(newsupdate)> git status >>> [...] >>> # modified: NEWS >>> [...] >>> jmayer@egg:~/work/wireshark/git(newsupdate)> git commit -a >>> [newsupdate c159b39] As long as the NEWS file is part of the source >>> distribution it really needs to be updated every time the file >>> docbook/release-notes.asciidoc get changed. >>> 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) >>> jmayer@egg:~/work/wireshark/git(newsupdate)> git review >>> remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (2/2) >>> remote: Processing changes: new: 1, refs: 1, done >>> remote: >>> remote: New Changes: >>> remote: https://code.wireshark.org/review/398 >>> remote: >>> To ssh://jma...@code.wireshark.org:29418/wireshark >>> * [new branch] HEAD -> refs/publish/master/newsupdate >>> jmayer@egg:~/work/wireshark/git(newsupdate)> gerrit review 398,1 --submit >>> --code-review +2 >>> jmayer@egg:~/work/wireshark/git(newsupdate)> git checkout master >>> Switched to branch 'master' >>> jmayer@egg:~/work/wireshark/git(master)> git branch -D newsupdate >>> Deleted branch newsupdate (was c159b39). >>> >>> -- >>> Joerg Mayer <jma...@loplof.de> >>> We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that >>> works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology. >>> ___________________________________________________________________________ >>> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> >>> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev >>> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev >>> mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe >> ___________________________________________________________________________ >> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> >> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev >> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev >> mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
