Sat Apr 26 06:13:00 GMT 2014
Andrey Repin writes:
> This is exactly what makes me dislike it strongly. This, and idiotic model of
> copying whole repository to my machine, when I only want to glance at the
> source code, and find the culprit of my current issues.
You might want to learn about shallow clones, but unless you really have
a slow or metered internet connection it's usually not worth the
trouble. By the time you found the culprit of your current issues you
are asking yourself "how did it get there?" and at that point you'll
want the history anyway.
> And "fine control" doesn't mix with "project consistency" at all.
> Subversion is aimed at versioning of a whole project, in a supposedly
> consistent state at each version. What can be more "fine" than this, is beyond
> my understanding.
> You can still commit separate files from working copy, though, but this
> practice is discouraged for the greater good of the project you develop.
I don't think you can comment on things you don't seem to have tried in
earnest. Yes, Git doesn't come with a canned workflow in the same way
that SVN does. That's a good thing in my book, but there's no shortage
of writeups on how to mimic different workflows in Git if you want to do
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+
SD adaptations for Waldorf Q V3.00R3 and Q+ V3.54R2:
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin