> history is nothing but a DAG, and branches and tags are just pointers Whats different about Git is the fact that your entire commit > version control systemstheres nothing specific to Git about any of > Concepts of branches, tagging and merging are common to all modern Those ate precisely the type of documents The more complex the documentation, the more > collated and reconciled together somehow. > who will make comments and submit annotations, all of which have to be > documents, its common for them to be passed around to different people Your local repository, but it can also be confusing to non-technical Rebasing is an essential activity when maintaining You don't want to create an implicit branch when pulling, you have to do a This is not the place and time to explain how Git works, but in short, if > that has been published for others to see. > What are they doing using rebase? You should never use that on a branch Implicit or required in ordinary work-flow, which makes it confusing for However in Git creating a branch is often
MERCURIAL WINDOWS HOOK EXAMPLE KEYGEN
They want to work onīranches others have created.
They don't want to create and manage branches. Since when do documentation writers not need to manage Whats different about Git is the fact that your entire commit history is nothing but a DAG, and branches and tags are just pointers into that DAG. The more complex the documentation, the more important such formalization becomes.Ĭoncepts of branches, tagging and merging are common to all modern version control systemstheres nothing specific to Git about any of them. A distributed VCS merely formalizes the process. Even with common-or-garden office documents, its common for them to be passed around to different people who will make comments and submit annotations, all of which have to be collated and reconciled together somehow. They really really like that by default a file can be checked out and modified only by a single person. What are they doing using rebase? You should never use that on a branch that has been published for others to see.įrom experience, the lock-modify-unlock model and Visual Source Safe specifically, is the best VCS for non-developers. Yet, every git-pull is potentially a merge and git-rebase requires understanding of what commits are, the relation between hashes and commits, etc. Since when do documentation writers not need to manage revisions to their documentation? They don't need and don't want to manage branches. I mentioned documentation writers, testers, web designers, etc. The people I am referring to are not 'software developers'. Interact with it through the safe environment of "lock-modify-unlock". That the main repository can be kept in Git, but parts of the team can A bridge from Git to SVN, or from Git to VSS. I am thinking that the right solution to this kind of problem may be toĭevelop reverse bridges. That by default a file can be checked out and modified only by a single Specifically, is the best VCS for non-developers. Questionable, but regardless, they are what they are, and they may be fullyĬompetent at their respective jobs without understanding Git or knowingįrom experience, the lock-modify-unlock model and Visual Source Safe Whether they have been 'damaged' by using 'inferior VCS' is To prevent you from losing history, non-fast-forward updates were rejected" Meaningful, would be utterly confusing to them:
Take the following example error message, which while technically very Yet, every git-pull is potentially a mergeĪnd git-rebase requires understanding of what commits are, the relation I mentionedĭocumentation writers, testers, web designers, etc. This is a good example of the kind of naivete that doesn't actually help
0 kommentar(er)
