On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:15:35AM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> Hi, >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Steffen Prohaska wrote: >>> On Oct 25, 2007, at 12:14 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >>> >>>> But I think I have to drive my message home again: if what you desire >>>> becomes reality, you take away the clear distinction between local and >>>> remote branches. In fact, those branches are neither local (because the >>>> next pull will automatically update them with remote changes, but _only_ >>>> if they fast-forward) nor remote (because you plan to work on them >>>> locally). >>> Exactly, because I do not work on those branches alone. These are >>> _shared_ branches. I can work on such a branch with a group of >>> developers. I'm willing to accept this bit of chaos. >> It is not just a chaos. I see a serious problem here. On _your_ >> computer, you do _not_ have a shared branch. Which is visible _even_ in >> your modified work flow when you have unpushed changes. > > Ofcourse it is. People might pull from it. That's the whole point of a > distributed model. > >> So your desired illusion that your local branches are anything but local >> branches will never be perfect enough. >>> Your rebase workflow is not possible if more than one dev wants to work >>> on the topic branch together. >> Why not? I do it all the time. CVS users do it all the time, for that >> matter. > > For 200 branches at a time, where any of them might have changed? Do they > *really* go into all those branches and make really, really sure they run > git pull before they ever do anything? Isn't there a teensy weensy risk of > them forgetting that sometime when they really meant to do it? > > On the other hand, if they absolutely *must* fork a branch at a specific > point in history (rather than "the latest published work this branch has"), > won't they run gitk/qgit/git-log/whatever, regardless of where their branch > head is? > >> The problem I see here: you know git quite well. Others don't, and will >> be mightily confused why pull updates local branches sometimes, and >> sometimes not. > > Do you know this, or are you just guessing? I'm getting the exact same > confusion with the current behaviour. "Why the hell doesn't git update > all the branches I told the damn stupid tool to auto-merge when I pull?" > frequently echoes around the office. My co-workers aren't interested in > learning about git internals, or its reasons for doing what it does. > They don't give a damn about local vs remote namespaces for their branches. > They want to get some work done the smoothest way possible, but with our > small forest of repositories and the bushel of branches in each repo > makes life difficult for them, because they just can't imagine that > git doesn't do what they told it to, which is "this branch tracks that". > They may work on "this", but still want it to track "that" so they don't > have to run "git-update-all.sh", or "git-walk-everything.sh" or any other > of a dozen small and near-identical scripts floating around the office. > What actually wonders me why you guys do have 200 local branches. I usually just create a local branch from the remote IFF I'd like to do some work on it. And for inspecting a remote branch, a detached HEAD works just as fine ... -Peter - 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
