We are considering adopting git. We are currently using Vault from 

One of the issues with our source code is that there is one file that is 
critical to our development. If its changed in our working directory then 
the entire solution needs to be re-built. We currently avoid this and 
usually end up needing to do it every couple of days or so, unless we are 
the developer making the changes to the critical file. We can avoid it in 
Vault by simply not updating the working directory with the new version.

We would use a Central Repository workflow as described here: 
http://www.atlassian.com/git/workflows. We would probably end up using the 
Gitflow Workflow model. Gitflow is very similar to how we work with Vault.

With git, it seems that if we want to commit to the Central Repository we 
need to pull any changes from the branch we are pushing too. If the 
critical file has been changed in that branch then we must receive it in 
order to push our changes to that branch. We can of course push the changes 
then, but our local working directory will need to be re-compiled.

Does anyone have experience with handling a critical file like this?

Does it require that our commits to the central repository only take place 
when we are prepared to re-compile? This is a negative for Developer 
adoption of git.

If a developer must receive the critical file change, what would you say to 
a developer that makes him think its worth adopting git even though it has 
this major drawback?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git 
for human beings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to