This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GIT and CVS
> From: Phil Muldoon <email@example.com>
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:51:40 +0100
> > $ cvs update
> > (make some changes)
> git pull will fetch and merge changes.
Then why does the man page says it's "discouraged"?
Warning: Running git pull (actually, the underlying git merge) with
uncommitted changes is discouraged: while possible, it leaves you in a
state that is hard to back out of in the case of a conflict.
That sounds like "don't do it".
> > $ cvs commit
> git commit
> git push
Bzr's "bzr commit" is simpler: just one command, no need to remember
to run 2 commands.
Let's face it: git usage frowns on centralized or star-shape
development patterns. So git commands and "normal" workflows do not
lend themselves easily towards that.
> > With lots of "cvs diff" invocations in between to check my changes and
> > remind myself what I'm working on.
> I think this is where GIT would benefit most. This is something that
> GIT, imo, does far faster, and far better than CVS.
_Any_ dVCS will do much betetr here, because these operations are
entirely local, they don't need to hit the wire.
> My one brief experience with bzr while checking out emacs was
> painfully slow.
When was that, and how slow was "painfully slow"?