Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up

* Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> [090605 13:55]:

> Yeah, a requirement to work from the back branch forward is quite
> unacceptable IMNSHO. It's also quite unreasonable. The tool is there to
> help, not to force an unnatural work pattern on us.

Again, just to make it clear, git isn't going to *force* anyone to
drastically change their workflow. For people who want to keep a
separate "working directory" per branch, and just work on them as
independently as they do with CVS, *nothing* is going to have to change,
except the possible "git push" step required to actually publish your
committed changes... But, if you want, you could just also have a
post-commit hook that will do that push for you too, and you just don't
commit until you're sure (a-la-cvs-style):

cvs update === git stash save && git pull && git stash apply
cvs commit === git commit -a && git push

The "git stash" is because git won't pull/merge remote work into a
"dirty" workdir... This is the classic conflict CVS mess that git avoids,
and then allows you to use all it's powerful merge machinery to "merge"
any of your stashed local changes back into what you've just pulled.

But....

I have a feeling that as people (specifically the comitters) get slowly
introduced and exposed to some of the more advanced things git lets you
do, and as you get comfortable with using it, people will *want* to
start altering how they do thing, simply because they start to find out
that git really allows them to do what they really want, rather than
what they have "thought they want" because they've been so brainwashed
by CVS...

;-)

--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.