Thanks Jeffrey ... I'll have another look at cherry-picking. Last I looked, it wasn't quite the bees-knees. Don't get me wrong, I think GIT is a great tool. Like every tool, "not everything is a nail". Therein lies the rub *lol* Just for establishing my credibility; Git might be something like my 15th source/version control package.
I don't have answers to some of those propositions -- Each project demands its own //stuff// ... Philosophically I accept that ends don't justify the means. I tend to FEEL quite strongly these days (as a largely kinaesthetic person) that the process should serve "decent" END-s. Or in a TQM / SixSigma frame: "agreed Ends". I have a pretty good handle on the 'best bits' as well as the 'missing bits' from those 15 experiences -- I ignored the big bad corporate #16 a former employer kept telling me "was better" than JADE for version- ed objects. And, ... That is the main reason I prefer Git -- you can't 'version objects' (in any pragmatic form, that I've found). I realise that may sound deluded. That's OK too. You have good tips Jeffrey and I'm letting go of my un-git sinful ways until needs must (as they always do). w. On Mar 4, 11:58 am, Jeffrey <jefr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Unfortunately I don't have time for a full reply right now, but > essentially everything I said about actually implementing auto-merging > applies to implementing auto-cherry-picking. (Cherry-picking means > taking a commit from one place, and applying the same patch somewhere -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
