On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 11:37:13PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > By "svn-like", I mean the people whose workflow is: > > > > $ hack hack hack > > $ git commit > > $ git push ;# oops, somebody else pushed in the meantime > > $ git pull > > $ git push > > But that's not svn-like at all. It's not if you understand the difference between merge-then-commit and commit-then-merge. But for a clueless user who has been told "replace svn commit" with "git commit && git push" and replace "svn update" with "git pull", it is quite similar. > > Those people would now have to learn enough to choose between merge and > > rebase when running the "git pull". > > But that's only if they don't care about the shape of history. In my > experience the people that cling more to centralized VCS do not like > merges, so they rebase everything to make it a straight line. That is > much more "svn-like". > > So chances are they are already doing 'git pull --rebase' (or > similar), so their workflow wouldn't be affected. I think we are talking about two classes of users. People who truly don't care about the shape of history will also not care about using "git pull --rebase", because the only reason to use it is to impact the shape of history. I agree there is also a set of people coming from the centralized vcs world who want to keep a linear history. -Peff -- 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