Jan Holesovsky <kendy <at> suse.cz> writes: > Sure, but then you cannot push (push fails), and have to pull once again. > And that would be much more expensive => bigger probability somebody pushes > there something too. > Of course, no problem if you work on the CWS just yourself. ... which is the case for almost all work on OOo. However, I still dont see the problem. With hg a "push -f" never fails (creating an new head, if needed) and git should be able to do the same (creating an light weight branch).
> Oh sure, but you did that locally, and had no conflict. If you had a > conflict when you did the pull/merge on Linux, manual intervention would be > needed from you. On the server, I suppose just an admin would be allowed to > solve that. No: "on the server", you dont do any merges - you just create a new head/lightweight branch. Anyone can pull the heads and merge them (resolving conflicts) and push back(*). Actually, I think a lot of confusion arises from the git custom to expect pretty much every branch to be named, resulting in the strange fear of anonymous branches. Simple and easy branch creation/merging is what makes a DSCM a great tool. Do not fear to use it. Expecting every branch to be named is not a good idea in a DSCM because you can accidentally create branches (by two people committing on the same parent). There is little sense in naming one What-Alice-Did-While-Bob-Was-Working-On-This-Too and the other one What-Bob-Did-While-Alice-Was-Working-On-This-Too ... see also http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/BranchingExplained Have Fun, Bjoern (*) If two people merge the heads/light weight branches at the same time, nothing terrible happens and both merge changesets can be pushed back - you only still have two (new) heads/light weight branches. Well, if that happens (once in ten years), maybe you just need to talk to that other guy. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
