Steven Grimm wrote: > Andy Parkins wrote: >> svn update = git pull >> > > That's not quite equivalent, and it's one of the biggest annoyances svn > users seem to have when starting up with git in my observation (having > gone through it myself and watched a few other people at my company do > so.) svn update will merge upstream changes into your locally edited but > not yet committed files. git pull will just complain if you have > uncommitted local edits to files that changed upstream. In my opinion the update-then-commit workflow CVS and SVN forces on users is one of the more annoying features, forcing the user to resolve conflicts if he/she wants to be up-to-date. The update-then-commit assumes that you merge on update local modifications with current server version, assuming that ancestor is current local committed version. This makes off-line committing impossible, and makes rare updates (server version advanced by more than one commit) unnecessary hard. -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git - 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