Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

Steven Grimm wrote:

Andy Parkins wrote:

quoted

svn update = git pull
  

That's not quite equivalent, and it's one of the biggest annoyances svn 
users seem to have when starting up with git in my observation (having 
gone through it myself and watched a few other people at my company do 
so.) svn update will merge upstream changes into your locally edited but 
not yet committed files. git pull will just complain if you have 
uncommitted local edits to files that changed upstream.

In my opinion the update-then-commit workflow CVS and SVN forces on users
is one of the more annoying features, forcing the user to resolve conflicts
if he/she wants to be up-to-date.

The update-then-commit assumes that you merge on update local modifications
with current server version, assuming that ancestor is current local
committed version. This makes off-line committing impossible, and makes
rare updates (server version advanced by more than one commit) unnecessary
hard.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git