Re: pgsql: Typo fix.

On 01/13/2012 11:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie ene 13 12:49:58 -0300 2012:
>> On 01/13/2012 10:22 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just FWIW, I use a separate development repository as well. But I have
>>>> it added as a remote from the "commit repository", and thus just do a
>>>> "git merge --squash" instead of manually moving them with "patch".
>>>>
>>>> But I am very much a fan of keeping the repos separate for just that
>>>> reason - don't want to accidentally commit dev code.
>>> OK thanks.
>>>
>>> My patch foo seems occasionally faulty, but git merge --disaster is
>>> something I'm happy to avoid. I'll work on my hand grenade juggling
>>> skills before I do that.
>>
>> How you work is up to you, but "git merge --squash" is pretty safe,
>> since it doesn't actually commit anything.
> And if things go wrong you can always do git merge --abort.
>
> I, too, used to be scared of some of the options that git gives us, but
> after experimentation I found some of them to be hugely useful and safe
> enough that I now very rarely run use patches anymore.

Yeah. Just note this from the docs:

The third syntax ("git merge --abort") can only be run after the
merge has resulted in conflicts. git merge --abort will abort the
merge process and try to reconstruct the
pre-merge state. However, if there were uncommitted changes when the
merge started (and especially if those changes were further modified
after the merge was started), git merge
--abort will in some cases be unable to reconstruct the original
(pre-merge) changes. Therefore:

Warning: Running git merge with uncommitted changes is discouraged:
while possible, it leaves you in a state that is hard to back out of
in the case of a conflict.

Of course, if you aren't doing dev work on the tree in question that
shouldn't apply, presumably.

cheers

andrew