Hi, but even if they just play with the code. Why not always commit? As long as they don't push nobody else will be affected. Even if you play with the code it's useful to go back to earlier versions. Why would you not want to benefit from this possibility? So this would really only be two commands the commit and the pull command. I hope I didn't miss your point completely. Cheers Michael On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Bill Lear wrote: > On Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 17:03:58 (+0200) MichaelTiloDressel@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > >Hi, > > > >why don't they just do a simple > >git commit -a > >of their work before pulling? > > Because they are basically playing with some code and don't want to > commit it. > > >That's different to cvs! Committing only affects the cloned repository. > > Yup, we realize that. > > >I think one of the biggest advantages of git is the concept of everyone > >working on a clone. So developers are not prevented from actually using > >revision control just because they are afraid of disturbing others. They > >don't until they e.g. push! > > Right, but they just want updates to their working tree, as they could > do under CVS, without issuing five (or even one) other commands. > > > Bill > - 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
