Hi astian, On 12/07/2017 00:27, astian wrote: > Nikolay Shustov wrote: >> With Perforce, I can have multiple changelists opened, that group the >> changed files as needed. >> >> With Git I cannot seem to finding the possibility to figure out how to >> achieve the same result. And the problem is that putting change sets >> on different Git branches (or workdirs, or whatever Git offers that >> makes the changes to be NOT in the same source tree) is not a viable >> option from me as I would have to re-build code as I re-integrate the >> changes between the branches (or whatever changes separation Git >> feature is used). >> Build takes time and resources and considering that I have to do it on >> multiple platforms (I do cross-platform development) it really >> denominates the option of not having multiple changes in the same code >> tree. >> >> Am I ignorant about some Git feature/way of using Git that would help? >> Is it worth considering adding to Git a feature like "group of files" >> that would offer some virtutal grouping of the locally changed files >> in the checked-out branch? > > I never used Perforce and I'm not even sure I understand your problem, > but I thought I'd mention something that nobody else seems to have yet > (unless I missed it): > > First, one thing that seems obvious to me from your description is that > these "parallel features" you work on are obviously interdependent, > therefore I would rather consider the whole thing as a single feature. > Therefore, it makes sense to me to work in a single "topic branch". > > This doesn't preclude one from separating the changes in logically > sensible pieces. Indeed this is par for the course in Git and people do > it all the time by dividing the bulk of changes into a carefully chosen > series of commits. > > I think the most common way of doing this is to simply work on the whole > thing and once you're happy with it you use "git rebase --interative" in > order to "prettify" your history. > > But, and here comes the part I think nobody mentioned yet, if your > feature work is considerably large or spans a considerably long time it > may be undesirable to postpone all that work until the very end (perhaps > by then you already forgot important information, or perhaps too many > changes have accumulated so reviewing them all becomes significantly > less efficient). In that case, one solution is to use a "patch > management system" which will let you do that work incrementally (going > back and forth as needed). > > If you know mercurial, this is "hg mq". I don't think Git has any such > system built-in, but I know there are at least these external tools that > integrate with Git: > https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Interfaces,_frontends,_and_tools#Patch-management_Interface_layers > > Feel free to ignore this if I totally misunderstood your use case. > > Cheers This message actually creeped me out the first time I read it, after writing an e-mail reply of my own[1]. The tone it`s written in, the points you make, and even the conclusion about "hg mg" -- as if you were reading my mind. Yours was sent a bit before mine, but I guess we were writing it at the same time as well... Just spooky, lol. That said, I totally understand what you`re talking about, and I gave an example of the desired (yet missing?) Git work flow here[2] :) [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/6e4096fd-cbab-68f0-7a23-654382cb810e@xxxxxxxxx/ [2] https://public-inbox.org/git/27a3c650-5843-d446-1f59-64fabe5434a3@xxxxxxxxx/ Regards, Buga
