Re: [Rails-devel] Branching (was: Rails 1.5.1 available)

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Erik:
quick response how to use git:

My usage pattern is now to use egit only read-only. 
I submit all git commands using the CLI. I find egit for active usage 
to clumsy. However egit updates quickly after a git command (and if I am in a 
hurry pressing F5 usually inits an immediate update).

Committing minor changes is not an issue for me, as
you can easily use
git commit-a --amend
which adds the recent changes to the previous commit.
So usually I have a first commit with
git commit -a -m "what I am currently working on"
followed by a sequence of git commit -a --amend

Even if use individual commits you can always combine those with
git rebase -i HEAD~3
to modify and combine the latest three commits.
And this can always be aborted using
git rebase --abort
or reverted with
git reset --hard

And if you have local branches anyway you will usually rebase the commits 
before moving (rebasing) them into the master.

I had no use for stash until now.

Stefan


On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:33:46 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> Small changes and fixes I'm currently doing directly in the master branch.
> For more substantial work I create local branches, that I merge into master
> before pushing to the repo.
> 
> I have one problem with branching, though: you can't switch branches easily
> if you have uncommitted work.  And I don't like creating commits for small
> bits and pieces.
> 
> I know you can use 'git stash' to put away uncommitted work (index
> included), but git stash does not seem to honour .gitignore.  Or perhaps
> its Egit's handling of 'git add'.
> Yesterday I tried stashing for the first time, and 'git stash pop' failed
> on 18xx.log files that are included in my ignore files. (I think these
> logs are created by JUnit test runs. Perhaps I have just badly configured
> my log location).
> 
> At least one would expect that the index would be saved when switching
> branches, but that does not seem to be the case. And stashing is a hassle.
> This is my only major gripe with Git so far.
> 
> Erik.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > 
> > > IMO, it's easier to leave master as the lineage of stable changes and
> > > do any new development in (usually local) branches that can be merged
> > > into the stable trunk when they're ready.
> > > 
> > > In git, branches and tags are both very very cheap (and fast), unlike
> > > SVN. So, if you want to have all development happen in master, then
> > > branch off for stable releases, we can do that too.
> > 
> > Substantial changes have still should be done inside separate branches,
> 
> like
> 
> > my start of refactoring some parts in the Rails 2.0 branch.
> > Stefan
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains
> a definitive record of customers, application performance, security
> threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
> sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel