Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

Hi,

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Steven Grimm wrote:

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

Let me pick up the ball here. Once you did your share of conflicting 
merges, you _will_ realize how much better it is to merge when you are 
at a relatively stable state, i.e. you can test things (if only to 
make sure that the merge did not introduce strange side effects). And 
guess what, at such a stage I would commit anyway.

That's a great workflow if you're working on relatively discrete, 
standalone changes. A lot of the time, when I'm working on an isolated 
change, I do just that, and I merge when I'm stable just like you 
describe. That's probably the vastly most common mode of operation for 
distributed open-source projects, which obviously were git's initial 
target audience.

It is also possible (and I do that) when merging often. I use cherry-pick 
for that. At a later stage, I merge, and this mostly succeeds, since the 
merge is really a 3-way merge (with the obvious results).

And out of curiosity, are you using git for distributed, relatively 
autonomous development, or for collaboration with a high level of 
interdependency between developers?

I use Git virtually everywhere it can be used:

- backups
- personal projects
- configuration files
- documents
- collaboration with other people
- tracking CVS
- ...

Ciao,
Dscho