Hi Christian,
I personally have no problem dealing without revision numbers .
I merely used them directly .
However, I think I gotta admit that this is a world more than just us .
There's an obvious reason why Windows and MS are still standing, and IE
is still the market holder :
we are the minority .. a lot of people just care to get the work done .
surely i felt defeated, but one lesson to know is that the interface is
very important for beginners ;
and a simplified numbering scheme is really what the managers/VPs are
looking for to avoid rookie mistakes .
Thanks for the support tho =)
I know i m not alone
Justin
Christian MICHON wrote:
I'm an ASIC designer too.
this is unimportant: if they want to track a specific release of a
file, it's better to look at what was the file's content from this cut
to that cut.
just use gitk and git-gui: almost all can be done with these two
graphical tools.
for linear development, yes. but when we were requested to perform
maintenance on a specific old cut, this was becoming a nightmare.
gitk, git-gui: two commands (actually gitk can be called from git-gui)
this is the wrong approach.
use branches to reference the different ressources (rtl, simulation, layout).
then track these branches between them for deliveries and work/flow.
use tags to mark specific releases/cuts.
you can create an alias: git-show-branch | tail -r
yes, I used to be scared by sha1 too: I even created numbered tags for
each commit. Until I read more about git, and stopped expecting using
git as svn/cvs.
no, it would kill the right approach: embrace the index, and never look back.
you have to adapt your methods instead: trust another ASIC designer :-)
--
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
