Hi, On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > 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. By that reasoning, left is right. Because your "left" is my "right". > > 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? I slowly start to understand why your users are confused. _Nobody_ works on 200 branches at the same time. (No, maintainers don't count: they do not work _on_ the branches, but _with_; they merge them.) When you're done with a topic, why do you leave it around? Cluttering up your "git branch" output? > > 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?" That's easy. A merge can have conflicts. Conflicts need a working directory. You cannot have multiple working directories. (Actually, you can, with git-new-workdir, which would break down _horribly_ with your desired change.) Oh? You don't have local changes? Then why _on earth_ do you have a local branch? Ciao, Dscho - 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
