That seems silly. I wouldn't want to commit if the code is in some bad state. What would I put for the commit message... "Oops, gotta go."?
- Gordon -----Original Message----- From: Sylvain Lecoy [mailto:sylvain.le...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 3:57 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: Git's "branches are cheap and fast but modal" model When you work on a branch, and you want to work on another branch, you first have to commit in the current branch you working on to save your work. Then, you git checkout the branch you want to work on, and so on... Cheers ! 2013/3/19 Gordon Smith <gosm...@adobe.com> > Is that what you do? > > - Gordon > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dasa Paddock [mailto:dpadd...@esri.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 3:38 PM > To: <dev@flex.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Git's "branches are cheap and fast but modal" model > > You could use the stash command: > > http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Stashing > http://git-scm.com/docs/git-stash > > --Dasa > > On Mar 19, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Gordon Smith <gosm...@adobe.com> > wrote: > > > I'm having a hard time with the fact that, although Git branches are > cheap and fast, you can work on only one of them at a time. In > Subversion, of course, they're just different directories and you can > have editable files for multiple branches simultaneously. > > > > So suppose I'm editing files on one branch and haven't gotten to the > point where I want to commit. When I want to work on another branch, > what do I do with those edits? > > > > - Gordon > > > > -- Sylvain Lecoy Ingénieur d'étude et développement +33(0)6 67 36 20 85 +44(0)7599 618 024
