Development > Newbie Coding

Switch from svn to git without redownloading everything?

<< < (8/13) > >>

Duke:

--- Quote from: dodon on October 01, 2010, 11:52:33 am ---@duke: as Mattn proposed one local branch per bug seems appropriate.

--- End quote ---
I believe you and Mattn that this is the way to go with GIT.
But isn't that trading stashing for branching ?

My point is that it's *overhead* compared to SVN. I don't want to manage branches, I want to squash bugs.

keybounce:
What do I do that doesn't get committed?

Debugging builds trying to track down the graphic issues (although I've got a new idea to try to track it down, that goes back to the older stuff in svn)

Modifying the make scripts to make sure that there's a locally compiled map ready when I type "make".

At one point, when I had some files on an external drive for space reasons, I had some symbolic links and needed to modify some "find" commands in the makefiles to include (I think) -L

Sometimes I've had to play around with configure.


--- Quote ---Branches
--- End quote ---
With SVN, I could make a local modification (such as to the Makefiles, or debugging output in the renderer), and then move around from revision to revision, and my changes stay in. So if I'm trying to track something in rendering, I can.

The point is?
It sounds like the only way to play with git is to commit everything that you do.
That sounds like saying that you have to allow anyone that wants to play with the source to commit changes to the development tree.

Unless I'm missing something, that's horrible.

What is supposed to be git's benefit over svn?

Mattn:
a commit is not going to become part of the development tree on sf.net - you still have to publish it (push it).

you can always stash your local working copy changes besides, checkout the revision you like to have, and pop back your stashed changes into your current working copy (this is btw. nothing git specific, it's the same for mercurial and the like, too)

if you try to nail down a revision that introduced a bug, you should try the git bisect feature.

Mattn:
one more note maybe. we don't have to allow anything to anyone on the local git repo clone. it's a repository everybody on the world can cherry-pick or clone from again. what we have to allow is the pushing of your commits back into the sf.net repository. you can make as many commits as you like in your local copy, or create as many branches as you like.

dodon:

--- Quote from: Duke on October 02, 2010, 12:22:23 am ---But isn't that trading stashing for branching ?

--- End quote ---

I don't think so.
With stashing all your changes are in one place, you risk publishing unfinished code and one bugfix affecting an other one.
With branching you separate the changes for each task, with regular commits to the branche you reduce the risk of loosing your codechanges with awrong delete, edit or merge, you can use all the tools git provides for the code you develop (changehistory, bisect, ...) and you can even "ignore" the changes in the masterbranch (but if you wait to long mergin the changes back will be painful)


--- Quote from: Duke on October 02, 2010, 12:22:23 am ---My point is that it's *overhead* compared to SVN. I don't want to manage branches, I want to squash bugs.

--- End quote ---
Yes it is overhead. All I can do is to urge you to try branching (and if it does not work for you at the moment to try it again, when you are comfortable with git) and then decide if it's worth it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page