Skip to main content

Home/ dvcs-vs-vcs/ Group items matching "dvcs" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Daniel Jomphe

Linus Torvalds: I Have Never Really Talked To Microsoft! - 0 views

www.efytimes.com/...news.htm

bsd comparison dvcs git gpl license vcs dvcs-vs-vcs

shared by Daniel Jomphe on 29 Sep 08 - Cached
  • I think it is much improved over the early drafts, and I don't think it's a horrible licence. I just don't think it's the same kind of 'great' licence that the GPLv2 is.So in the absence of the GPLv2, I could see myself using the GPLv3. But since I have a better choice, why should I?That said, I try to always be pragmatic, and the fact that I think the GPLv3 is not as good a licence as the GPLv2 is not a 'black and white' question. It's a balancing act. And if there are other advantages to the GPLv3, maybe those other advantages would be big enough to tilt the balance in favour of the GPLv3.Quite frankly, I don't really see any, but if Solaris really is to be released under the GPLv3, maybe the advantage of avoiding unnecessary non-compatible licence issues could be enough of an advantage that it might be worth trying to re-license the Linux kernel under the GPLv3 too.Don't get me wrong -- I think it's unlikely. But I do want to make it clear that I'm not a licence bigot, per se. I think the GPLv2 is clearly the better licence, but licences aren't everything.After all, I use a lot of programs that are under other licences. I might not put a project I start myself under the BSD (or the X11-MIT) licence, but I think it's a great licence, and for other projects it may well be the right one.
  • I like making strong statements, because I find the discussion interesting. In other words, I actually tend to 'like' arguing. Not mindlessly, but I certainly tend to prefer the discussion a bit more heated, and not just entirely platonic.And making strong arguments occasionally ends up resulting in a very valid rebuttal, and then I'll happily say: "Oh, ok, you're right."But no, that didn't happen on SVN/CVS. I suspect a lot of people really don't much like CVS, so I didn't really even expect anybody to argue that CVS was really anything but a legacy system. And while I've gotten a few people who argued that I shouldn't have been quite so impolite against SVN (and hey, that's fair -- I'm really not a very polite person!), I don't think anybody actually argued that SVN was 'good'.SVN is, I think, a classic case of 'good enough'. It's what people are used to, and it's 'good enough' to be used fairly widely, but it's good enough in exactly the sense DOS and Windows were 'good enough'. Not great technology, just very widely available, and it works well enough for people and looks familiar enough that people use it. But very few people are 'proud' of it, or excited about it.Git, on the other hand, has some of the 'UNIX philosophy' behind it. Not that it is about UNIX, per se, but like original UNIX, it had a fundamental idea behind it. For UNIX, the underlying philosophy was/is that, "Everything is a file." For git, it's, Everything is just an object in the content-addressable database."
  • I think there's both a licence issue, and a community and personality issue. The BSD licences always encouraged forking, but also meant that if somebody gets really successful and makes a commercial fork, you cannot necessarily join back. And so even if that doesn't actually happen (and it did, in the BSD cases -- with BSDi), people can't really 'trust' each other as much.In contrast, the GPLv2 also encourages forking, but it not only encourages the branching off part, it also encourages (and 'requires') the ability to merge back again. So now you have a whole new level of trust: you 'know' that everybody involved will be bound by the licence, and won't try to take advantage of you.So I see the GPLv2 as the licence that allows people the maximum possible freedom within the requirement that you can always join back together again from either side. Nobody can stop you from taking the improvements to the source code.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • So is the BSD licence even more 'free'? Yes. Unquestionably. But I just wouldn't want to use the BSD licence for any project I care about, because I not only want the freedom, I also want the trust so that I can always use the code that others write for my projects.So to me, the GPLv2 ends up being a wonderful balance of 'as free as you can make it', considering that I do want everybody to be able to trust so that they can always get the source code and use it.Which is why I think the GPLv3 ends up being a much less interesting licence. It's no longer about that trust about "getting the source code back"; it has degenerated into a "I wrote the code, so I should be able to control how you use it."In other words, I just think the GPLv3 is too petty and selfish. I think the GPLv2 has a great balance between 'freedom' and 'trust'. It's not as free as the BSD licences are, but it gives you peace of mind in return, and matches what I consider 'tit-for-tat': I give source code, you give me source code in return.The GPLv3 tries to control the 'use' of that source code. Now it's, "I give you my source code, so if you use it, you'd better make your devices hackable by me." See? Petty and small-minded, in my opinion.
  • I don't really believe in the 'browser OS', because I think that people will always want to do some things locally. It might be about security, or simply about privacy reasons. And while connectivity is widely available, it certainly isn't 'everywhere'. So I think the whole 'Web OS' certainly is part of the truth, but another part that people seem to dismiss is that operating systems have been around for decades, and it's really a fairly stable and well-known area of endeavour. People really shouldn't expect the OS to magically change: it's not like people were 'stupid' back in the 60s either, or even that hardware was 'that' fundamentally different back then!So don't expect a revolution. I think OSs will largely continue to do what they do, and while we'll certainly evolve, I don't think they'll change radically. What may change radically are the interfaces and the things you do on top of the OS (and certainly the hardware beneath the OS will continue to evolve too), and that's what people obviously care about.The OS? It's just that hidden thing that makes it all possible. You really shouldn't care about it, unless you find it very interesting to know what is really going on in the machine.
Daniel Jomphe

An introduction to git-svn for Subversion/SVK users and deserters - 0 views

utsl.gen.nz/...intro.html

comparison dvcs git mercurial svn vcs dvcs-vs-vcs

shared by Daniel Jomphe on 30 Sep 08 - Cached
Daniel Jomphe liked it
  • This article is aimed at people who want to contribute to projects which are using Subversion as their code-wiki
  • Subversion users can skip SVK and move straight onto git-svn with this tutorial.
  • People who are responsible for Subversion servers and are converting them to git in order to lay them down to die are advised to consider the one-off git-svnimport, which is useful for bespoke conversions where you don't necessarily want to leave SVN/CVS/etc breadcrumbs behind. I'll mention bespoke conversions at the end of the tutorial, and the sort of thing that you end up doing with them.
  • ...77 more annotations...
  • A lot of this tutorial is dedicated to advocacy, sadly necessary. Those who would rather just cut to the chase will probably want to skip straight to
  • Another way of looking at it is to say that it's really a content- addressable filesystem, used to track directory trees.
  • we've got a simple and efficient filesystem which competes with RevML but is XML free
  • Subversion added nothing to CVS' development model.
  • Yes, it's a bunch of small programs that do one thing and do it well, get over it, they're being unified
  • There's also a pure Java
  • I used to push strongly for SVK, but got brow-beaten by people who were getting far more out of their version control system than I knew possible until I saw what they were talking about.
  • SVK could easily use git as a backing filesystem and drop the dependency on Subversion altogether. So could bzr or hg.
  • The repository model (see right) is also simple enough that there are complete git re-implementations you can draw upon, in a variety of languages.
  • git is first and foremost a toolkit for writing VCS systems
  • Writing a tool to do something that you want is often quite a simple matter of plugging together a few core commands. It's simple enough that once a few basic concepts are there, you begin to feel comfortable knowing that the repository just can't wedge, changes can be discarded yet not lost unless you request them to be cleaned up, etc.
  • I really haven't seen a nicer tool than gitk for browsing a repository.
  • gitk does some really cool things but is most useful when looking at projects that have cottoned onto feature branches (see feature branches, below). If you're looking at a project where everyone commits largely unrelated changes to one branch it just ends up a straight line, and not very interesting.
  • You can easily publish your changes for others who are switched on to git to pull. At a stretch, you can just throw the .git directory on an HTTP server somewhere and publish the path.
  • There's the git-daemon for more efficient serving of repositories (at least, in terms of network use), and gitweb.cgi to provide a visualisation of a git repository.
  • With Subversion, everyone has to commit their changes back to the central wiki, I mean repository, to share them.
  • With Git (actually this is completely true for other distributed systems), it's trivial to push and pull changes between each other. If what you're pulling has common history then git will just pull the differences.
  • If the person publishes their repository as described above, using the git-daemon(1), http or anything else that you can get your kernel to map to its VFS, then you can set it up as a "remote" and pull from it
  • Most people say "but I don't want branches". But users of darcs report that they didn't know how much they really did want branches, but never knew until darcs made it so easy. In essence every change can behave as a branch, and this isn't painful.
  • Because you can easily separate your repositories into stable branches, temporary branches, etc, then you can easily set up programs that only let commits through if they meet criteria of your choosing.
  • Because you can readily work on branches without affecting the stable branch, it is perfectly acceptable for a stable branch to be updated by a single maintainer only
  • Some repositories, for instance the Linux kernel, run a policy of no commit may break the build. What this means is that if you have a problem, you can use bisection to work out which patch introduced the bug.
  • You might use a continual integration server that is responsible for promoting branches to trunk should they pass the strictures that you set.
  • There is an awful lot less to keep in your head, and you don't have to do things like plan branching in advance.
  • Good feature branches mean you end up prototyping well-developed changes; the emphasis shifts away from making atomic commits. If you forgot to add a file, or made some other little mistake, it's easy to go back and change it. If you haven't even pushed your changes anywhere, that's not only fine, but appreciated by everyone involved. Review and revise before you push is the counter-balance to frequent commits.
  • Not only is the implementation fast locally, it's very network efficient, and the protocol for exchanging revisions is also very good at figuring out what needs to be transferred quickly. This is a huge difference - one repository hosted on Debian's Alioth SVN server took 2 days to synchronise because the protocol is so chatty. Now it fits in 3 megs and would not take that long to synchronise over a 150 baud modem.
  • Disk might be cheap, but my /home is always full - git has a separate step for compacting repositories, which means that delta compression can be far more effective. If you're a compression buff, think of it as having an arbitrarily sized window, because when delta compressing git is able to match strings anywhere else in the repository - not just the file which is the notional ancestor of the new revision.
  • Disk might be cheap, but my /home is always full - git has a separate step for compacting repositories, which means that delta compression can be far more effective. If you're a compression buff, think of it as having an arbitrarily sized window, because when delta compressing git is able to match strings anywhere else in the repository - not just the file which is the notional ancestor of the new revision. This space efficiency affects everything - the virtual memory footprint in your buffercache while mining information from the repository, how much data needs to be transferred during "push" and "pull" operations, and so on. Compare that to Subversion, which even when merging between branches is incapable of using the same space for the changes hitting the target branch. The results speak for themselves - I have observed an average of 10 to 1 space savings going from Subversion FSFS to git.
  • Perhaps somebody has already made a conversion of the project and put it somewhere
  • But people who use git are used to treating their repositories as a revision data warehouse which they use to mine useful information when they are trying to understand a codebase.
  • importing the whole repository from Subversion
  • If you like, you can skip early revisions using the -r option to git-fetch.
  • make a local branch for development
  • The name "foo" is completely private; it's just a local name you're assigning to the piece of work you're doing. Eventually you will learn to group related commits onto branches, called "topic branches", as described in the introduction.
  • Say you want to take a project, and work on it somewhere else in a different direction, you can just make a copy using cp or your favourite file manager. Contrast this with Subversion, where you have to fiddle around with branches/ paths, svn cp, svn switch, etc
  • Each of those copies is fully independent, and can diverge freely. You can easily push and pull changes between them without tearing your hair out.
  • Each time you have a new idea, make a new branch and work in that.
  • git svn init
    • Daniel Jomphe
      Daniel Jomphe on 30 Sep 08
       
      I used git svn clone instead
    • Daniel Jomphe
      Daniel Jomphe on 30 Sep 08
       
      I used git svn clone instead (with the same parameters)
  • git svn fetch
    • Daniel Jomphe
      Daniel Jomphe on 30 Sep 08
       
      this wasn't needed b/c of clone instead of init
  • But anyway, that copying was too slow and heavy. We don't want to copy 70MB each time we want to work on a new idea. We want to create new branches at the drop of a hat. Maybe you don't want to copy the actual repository, just make another checkout. We can use git-clone again
  • The -l option to git-clone told git to hardlink the objects together, so not only are these two sharing the same repository but they can still be moved around independently. Cool. I now have two checkouts I can work with, build software in, etc.
  • But all that's a lot of work and most of the time I don't care to create lots of different directories for all my branches. I can just make a new branch and switch to it immediately with git-checkout:
  • Once you have some edits you want to commit, you can use git-commit to commit them. Nothing (not even file changes) gets committed by default; you'll probably find yourself using git-commit -a to get similar semantics to svn commit.
  • There is also a GUI for preparing commits in early (but entirely functional) stages of development.
  • People used to darcs or SVK's interactive commit will like to try git add -i
  • correcting changes in your local branch
  • If it's the top commit, you can just add --amend to your regular git-commit command to, well, amend the last commit. If you explored the git-gui interface, you might have noticed the "Amend Last Commit" switch as well.
  • You can also uncommit. The command for this is git-reset
  • HEAD~1 is a special syntax that means "one commit before the reference called HEAD". HEAD^ is a slightly shorter shorthand for the same thing. I could have also put a complete revision number, a partial (non-ambiguous) revision number, or something like remotes/trunk. See git-rev-parse(1) for the full list of ways in which you can specify revisions.
  • I sometimes write commands like `gitk --all `git-fsck | awk '/dangling commit/ {print $3}'`' to see all the commits in the repository, not just the ones with "post-it notes" (aka references) stuck to them.
  • In this scenario, we'll assume that what I'm currently working on isn't finished, either - and I don't want to have to finish it first. It's not ready. I'm just going to call it "WIP".
  • "Another" way to revise commits is to make a branch from the point a few commits ago, then make a new series of commits that is revised in the way that you want. This is the same scenario as before.
  • I've introduced a new command there - git-cherry-pick. This takes a commit and tries to copy its changes to the branch you've currently got checked out. This technique is called rebasing commits. There is also a git-rebase command which probably would have been fewer commands than the above. But that's my way.
  • Using Git opens the door to a bazaar of VCS tools rather than sacrificing your projects at the altar of one.
  • keep your local branch up to date with Subversion
  • The recommended way to do this for people familiar with Subversion is to use git-svn rebase.
  • Note: before you do this, you should have a "clean" working tree - no local uncommitted changes. You can use git-stash (git 1.5.3+) to hide away local uncommitted changes for later.
  • This command is doing something similar to the above commands that used git-cherry-pick; it's copying the changes from one point on the revision tree to another
  • Better still is to bunch up your in-progress working copy changes into a set of unfinished commits, using git add -i (or git-gui / git-citool). Then try the rebase. You'll end up this time with more commits on top of the SVN tree than just one, so using Stacked Git you can "stg uncommit -n 4" (if you broke your changes into 4 commits), then use "stg pop" / "stg push" to wind around the stack (as well as "stg refresh" when finished making changes) to finish them - see
  • in my experience stg is the best tool for rebasing
  • Once you grok that, you'll only need to use stg and git-svn fetch.
  • Ok, so you've already gone and made the commits locally that you wanted to publish back to the Subversion server. Perhaps you've even made a collection of changes, revising each change to be clearly understandable, making a single small change well such that the entire series of changes can be easily reviewed by your fellow project contributors. It is now time to publish your changes back to Subversion. The command to use is git svn dcommit. The d stands for delta
  • git-svn won't let the server merge revisions on the fly; if there were updates since you fetched / rebased, you'll have to do that again.
  • People are not used to this, thinking somehow that if somebody commits something to file A, then somebody else commits something to file B, the server should make a merged version with both changes, despite neither of the people committing actually having a working tree with both changes. This suffers from the same fundamental problem that darcs' patch calculus does - that just because patches apply 'cleanly' does not imply that they make sense - such a decision can only be automatically made with a dedicated continual integration (smoke) server.
  • This is normally what I use in preference to rebase.
  • This will merge all the commits that aren't in your ancestry, but are in the ancestry of the branch trunk (try setting rightmost drop-down in gitk to 'ancestor' and clicking around to get a feel for what this means), and make a new commit which has two parents - your old HEAD, and whatever commit trunk is up to.
  • there are many shortfallings in git.
  • Sadly, this model is in use by virtually every Subversion hosted project out there. And that is going to be hard to undo.
  • Left: what darcs thinks when you start committing without marking tag points.
  • Right: Subversion has a somewhat smaller brain...
  • It is possible to use git in this way (see the figure to the right) - but it's not trivial, and not default. In fact git itself is developed in this way, using feature branches, aka topic branches.
  • bzr comes with some great utilities like the Patch Queue Manager which helps show you your feature branches. With PQM, you just create a branch with a description of what you're trying to do, make it work against the version that you branched off, and then you're done. The branch can be updated to reflect changes in trunk, and eventually merged and closed.
  • Windows support is good. Consistent implementation. Experience with the distributed development model. Friendly and approachable author and core team.
  • Actually the models of git and bzr are similar enough that bzr could be fitted atop of the git repository model
  • Mercurial is missing lightweight branches that makes git so powerful, and there is no content hashing, so it doesn't really do the whole "revision protocol" thing like git.
  • If you're on Windows it's probably a lot easier to get going.
  • git-svn fetch
    • Daniel Jomphe
      Daniel Jomphe on 30 Sep 08
       
      was not needed because I used git svn clone
  • Daniel Jomphe on 30 Sep 08
     
    Good at introducing concepts; not really great examples
Daniel Jomphe

Git changes how developers manage source code versions - SD Times On The Web - 0 views

www.sdtimes.com/33018

vcs comparison dvcs git subversion

shared by Daniel Jomphe on 03 Nov 08 - Cached
  • It decouples the notion of checkpointing from publishing. In Subversion, those are the same thing
  • Git lets developers experiment with the whole of a project, without worrying about breaking things or losing work
  • With Git running locally, developers push commits whenever they feel like and can fork and experiment to their hearts’ content. Those changes won't bother anyone “until you share [them],” said Vilain. “You share at the end of the day, after a day's work, when you've gone over the code a bit more.”
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • “The reason that most of us use it is that it helps productivity,” said Scott Chacon, a developer at GitHub. “It provides cheap local branching. It works for really big repositories and really small repositories. And it’s free, and it’s easy to get.
Daniel Jomphe

Setting up your Git repositories for open source projects at GitHub « Insoshi Ruby on Rails blog - 0 views

blog.insoshi.com/...open-source-projects-at-github

git learning best-practices dvcs-vs-vcs

shared by Daniel Jomphe on 23 Oct 08 - Cached
  • In setting up the repositories for Insoshi, I’ve applied the version control experience I gained at Discover, where I was technical lead for the software configuration management (SCM) team.
  • Except for that interaction, everyone works within their own repository and on their own schedule. There’s no process waiting to be completed that blocks you from moving on to whatever you need/want to do next. And you’re not forcing anyone to drop what they’re doing to right now to handle your request.
  • One of the major benefits of a distributed version control system like Git is that each repository is on an equal footing; in particular, we would like every fork to have the same master branch, so that if the “official” Insoshi repository should ever be lost there would be plenty of redundant backups.
  • ...14 more annotations...
  • it’s a bad idea in general to work on the master branch; experienced Git users typically work on separate development branches and then merge those branches into master when they’re done
  • Your local repository: The “right” way Keeping the big picture in mind, here are the commands I’ve run to set up my local repository (using the GitHub id long): $ git clone git://github.com/insoshi/insoshi.git $ cd insoshi $ git branch --track edge origin/edge $ git branch long edge $ git checkout long $ git remote add long git@github.com:long/insoshi.git $ git fetch long $ git push long long:refs/heads/long $ git config branch.long.remote long $ git config branch.long.merge refs/heads/long
  • You should note that the Git URL for the clone references the official Insoshi repository and not the URL of my own fork
  • Insoshi also has an ‘edge’ branch for changes that we want to make public but may require a bit more polishing before we’d consider them production-ready (in the past this has included migrating to Rails 2.1 and Sphinx/Ultrasphinx).  Our typical development lifecycle looks something like development -> edge -> master
  • I’m resisting the temptation to immediately start working on the local ‘master’ and ‘edge’ branches. I want to keep those in sync with the official Insoshi repository. I’ll keep my changes separate by creating a new branch ‘long’ that’s based off edge and checking it out
  • I’m starting my changes off of ‘edge’ since that contains all the latest updates and any contribution I submit a pull request for will be merged first into the official Insoshi ‘edge’ branch to allow for public testing before it’s merged into the ‘master’.
  • I’m finally adding the remote reference to my fork on GitHub
  • We should run a fetch immediately in order to sync up the local repository with the fork
  • I’m pushing up my new local branch up to my fork. Since it’ll be a new branch on the remote end, I need to fully specify the remote refspec
  • Now that the new branch is up on my fork, I want to set the branch configuration to track it
  • Setting the remote lets me just simply use $ git push to push changes on my development branch up to my fork
  • I’ve got a shell script for you.
  • The extra work is worth the effort, because with this configuration My changes will be easily identifiable in my named branch I can easily get updates from the main Insoshi repository Any updates I’ve pulled into master and edge are automatically pushed up to my fork on GitHub The last one is a bonus because the default refspec for remotes is refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*. This means that the simple ‘git push’ command will push up changes for all local branches that have a matching branch on the remote. And if I make it a point to pull in updates to my local master and edge but not work directly on them, my fork will match up with the official repository.
  • So what is the benefit of all this to open source projects like Insoshi? The easier it is for the contributor to pull in updates, the more likely it will be that the pull request will be for code that merges easily with the latest releases (with few conflicts) You can tell if someone is pulling updates by looking at their master and edge branches and seeing if they match up with the latest branches on the main repository By getting contributors in the habit of working on branches, you’re going to get better organized code contributions Basically, the less effort that’s required to bring in code via a pull request, the sooner it can be added to the project release. And at the end of the day, that’s really what it’s all about.
Daniel Jomphe

The Thing About Git - 0 views

tomayko.com/...the-thing-about-git

comparison git learning versioncontrol versioning dvcs-vs-vcs

shared by Daniel Jomphe on 29 Sep 08 - Cached
  • Version control systems have traditionally required a lot of up-front planning followed by constant interaction to get changes to the right place at the right time and in the right order. And woe unto thee if a rule is broken somewhere along the way, or you change your mind about something, or you just want to fix this one thing real quick before having to commit all the other crap in your working copy.
  • You can work on five separate logical changes in your working copy – without interacting with the VCS at all – and then build up a series of commits in one fell swoop. Or, you can take the opposite extreme and commit really frequently and mindlessly, returning later to rearrange commits, annotate log messages, squash commits together, tease them apart, or rip stuff out completely. It’s up to you, really. Git doesn’t have an opinion on the matter.
  • I’ve personally settled into a development style where coding and interacting with version control are distinctly separate activities. I no longer find myself constantly weaving in and out due to the finicky workflow rules demanded by the VCS. When I’m coding, I’m coding. Period. Version control - out of my head. When I feel the need to organize code into logical pieces and write about it, I switch into version control mode and go at it. I’m not saying this is the Right Way to use Git: in the end, it all goes to the same place. I’m saying that this is the way I seem naturally inclined to develop software, and Git is the first VCS I’ve used that accommodates the style.
  • ...20 more annotations...
  • Taking Control of Your Local Workflow
  • Git means never having to say, “you should have”
  • The big problem here is models.rb - it’s “tangled” in the sense that it includes modifications from two different logical changes. I need to tease these changes apart into two separate commits, somehow. This is the type of situation that occurs fairly regularly (to me, at least) and that very few VCS’s are capable of helping out with. We’ll call it, “The Tangled Working Copy Problem.”
  • Git is quite different in this regard. You can work on five separate logical changes in your working copy — without interacting with the VCS at all — and then build up a series of commits in one fell swoop. Or, you can take the opposite extreme and commit really frequently and mindlessly, returning later to rearrange commits, annotate log messages, squash commits together, tease them apart, or rip stuff out completely. It’s up to you, really. Git doesn’t have an opinion on the matter.
  • I've personally settled into a development style where coding and interacting with version control are distinctly separate activities. I no longer find myself constantly weaving in and out due to the finicky workflow rules demanded by the VCS. When I'm coding, I'm coding. Period. Version control – out of my head. When I feel the need to organize code into logical pieces and write about it, I switch into version control mode and go at it. I'm not saying this is the Right Way to use Git: in the end, it all goes to the same place. I'm saying that this is the way I seem naturally inclined to develop software, and Git is the first VCS I've used that accommodates the style.
  • The Index is also sometimes referred to as The Staging Area, which makes for a much better conceptual label in this case. I tend to think of it as the next patch: you build it up interactively with changes from your working copy and can later review and revise it. When you're happy with what you have lined up in the staging area, which basically amounts to a diff, you commit it. And because your commits are no longer bound directly to what’s in your working copy, you're free to stage individual pieces on a file-by-file, hunk-by-hunk basis. Once you've wrapped your head around it, this seemingly simple and poorly named layer of goo between your working copy and the next commit can have some really magnificent implications on the way you develop software.
  • We want to commit all of the changes to synchronize-bookmarks and some of the changes to models.rb, so let’s add them to the staging area:
  • add bin/synchronize-bookmarks
  • add --patch models.rb
  • tage this hunk [y/n/a/d/j/J/?]?
  • Stage this hunk [y/n/a/d/j/J/?]?
  • I run into The Tangled Working Copy Problem so often that I've devised a manual process for dealing with it under VCS’s that punt on the problem. For instance, if I were using Subversion, I might go at it like this:
  • The magic is in the --patch argument to git-add(1). This instructs Git to display all changes to the files specified on a hunk-by-hunk basis and lets you choose one of the following options for each hunk: y – stage this hunk _n_ – do not stage this hunk _a_ – stage this and all the remaining hunks in the file _d_ – do not stage this hunk nor any of the remaining hunks in the file _j_ – leave this hunk undecided, see next undecided hunk _J_ – leave this hunk undecided, see next hunk _k_ – leave this hunk undecided, see previous undecided hunk _K_ – leave this hunk undecided, see previous hunk _s_ – split the current hunk into smaller hunks
  • I like to review that the changes in the staging area match my expectations before committing: $ git diff --cached [diff of changes in staging area]
  • I also like to verify that my unstaged / working copy changes are as I expect: $ git diff [diff of changes in working copy that are not in the staging area]
  • Everything looks good, so I commit the staged changes: $ git commit -m "fix bookmark sucking problems"
  • git add --patch is actually a shortcut to features in git add --interactive, a powerful front-end for managing all aspects of the staging area. The git-add(1) manual page is a treasure trove of worthwhile information that’s often passed over due to the traditional semantics of VCS “add” commands. Remember that git-add(1) does a lot more than just add stuff – it’s your interface for modifying the staging area.
  • git commit --amend takes the changes staged in the index and squashes them into the previous commit. This lets you fix a problem with the last commit, which is almost always where you see the technique prescribed, but it also opens up the option of a commit-heavy workflow where you continuously revise and annotate whatever it is you're working on. See the git-commit(1) manual page for more on this.
  • And then there’s git rebase --interactive, which is a bit like git commit --amend hopped up on acid and holding a chainsaw – completely insane and quite dangerous but capable of exposing entirely new states of mind. Here you can edit, squash, reorder, tease apart, and annotate existing commits in a way that’s easier and more intuitive than it ought to be. The “INTERACTIVE MODE” section of the git-rebase(1) manual page is instructive but Pierre Habouzit’s demonstration is what flipped the light on for me.
  • There’s a section of the Git User’s Manual called The Workflow that describes, at a fairly low level, the various interactions between the working copy, the index, and the object database.
‹ Previous 21 - 33 of 33
Showing 20▼ items per page