Patrick Neuner wrote:
Hello,
we are using SVN right now and with the way we do / need to develop, it seems we
are constantly get in a merging horror.
I did quite some reading about git now, but I am still not really sure if that
what we try to accomplish can be done with git,
Or if we are really doing something a too odd way.
Conflicts will still happen with git, but "merge horror" no longer applies,
for a couple of reasons (I come from a similar background, but switched to
git in late 2005).
1. In SVN (and CVS), you're merging *unknown changes* into *unsaved state*.
You haven't committed your changes to the repository before you merge,
and you haven't (usually) looked at the upstream changes before you
try to merge. Git doesn't have this problem (and neither does any other
distributed version control system), since you first fetch changes from
someone else and then merge them into an already saved state. When a
merge conflict resolution goes wahoonie-shaped, you can easily restore
either of the previously saved states with zero hassle.
2. Git has "rerere", which records and reuses previously resolved merge
conflicts, so you won't get the same merge-conflict more than once, if
you enable rerere.
3. SVN (and CVS) won't remember which changes are already merged in, so
they will fail horribly at repeated same-branch merges. Git (and other
DAG-based scm's) can and do calculate the merge-base for you so you'll
never have to think about that yourself.
Let my try to describe – I also added an image.
---- repo 1
|
- repo 2 (=branch of repo 1 - for our external developers)
We have the main branch and 2nd branch for external developers.
We work inside the repo1, which are usually features/updates that go life after
a short turn.
Our external developer work on different features that will be merged into repo1
from time to time.
Usually during development, we sometimes need to push features from repo1 to
repo2, and later the features developed on repo2 will be pushed back to repo1,
And also smaller bug fixes come from repo2 that needs to go into repo1.
But this is a constant process, meaning, that both branches will exist,
especially repo2 will exist after this feature has finished for smaller
updates/bugfixes.
We don’t want to do a new branch for each bugfix, for each new small feature,
but have different branches for different developer teams.
So I was wondering, if this could cause troubles with GIT in case of merging
around without closing a branch.
Git doesn't take away merge conflicts, but it does make it (a LOT) easier to
handle them when they appear, for the reasons stated above. What you want to
do sounds pretty reasonable, although I'd personally use feature-branches
for both internal and external developers, since they make it possible to
pick which features and fixes you want to release while allowing developers
to make as many commits as they feel is necessary for each feature.
I am adding an link to an image that might show what I tried to explain.
http://temp.in.futureweb.at/parallell-development.png
We're quite fond of ascii-art here on git@vger. Since I don't know what the
different colors mean in the picture, ascii would probably have made more
sense (since I then could have commented on it).
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and
terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war
on peace.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
