Dear Philip,

Thanks for your thoughtful help.  I come from the Subversion world.  I 
think I am beginning to get git.  There are a lot of positive things about 
it, and a few drawbacks.  It solves many problems but doesn't do everything 
- especially not the things you can't even imagine a solution for. 
 Sometime you just have to work.

I appreciate everyones input.  I am sure I will use git increasingly.  And 
I 'm sure I'll be back with other questions.

Thanks!

Blake


On Monday, October 21, 2013 1:37:50 PM UTC-5, Philip Oakley wrote:
>
>  Hi Blake,
> Just a quick prelude - as I didn't see anything that explicitly mentioned 
> your level of Git experience - 
>  
> Git branching is not the same as branching in most other version control 
> systems. 
> Changing between Git branches is not normally swapping between major 
> variants and divergences of a project. 
>  
> If your previous experience has been of 'branches' being different, 
> separate and divergent version of code (and a VCS that assumes that is 
> true), it will be hard to see Git's branch model for what it is. One blog 
> on the issue is [1].
>  
> Many codebases become inter-twined because of the things the VCS makes 
> easy and those that are hard (and then you get into the usual problems...). 
> Git changes those biases, and reduces the problems (but may not be an 
> instant fix). It can take a while to see the woods for the trees. 
>  
> Philip
>  
> [1] 
> http://felipec.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/analysis-of-hg-and-git-branches/
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> *From:* Blake McBride <javascript:> 
> *To:* git-...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 21, 2013 4:03 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [git-users] GIT with large projects
>
> I am sure this can be done.  The problem is: 
>
> 1.  It would be a complex setup and may require a lot of maintenance to 
> keep up to date
>
> 2.  It would add a whole new potential bug element.  In other words, if 
> the setup, or how it worked, had a problem, you'd have something to debug 
> that would never have existed without attempting to add the ability to 
> switch branches.  You wouldn't even know that that was the problem until 
> you got far enough in the debug process.  
>
> So, while if this system were perfect it would be a good feature, in 
> practice it would just add an additional failure point.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Blake
>
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:38:59 AM UTC-5, Dale Worley wrote: 
>>
>> > From: Blake McBride <blak...@gmail.com> 
>>
>> > Not sure what you mean about designed well, but in order to switch 
>> branches 
>> > without having to do a full rebuild would involve: 
>> > 
>> > [lots of stuff] 
>>
>> I believe there are commercial systems that do this.  They keep track 
>> of the derived files and what source files they depend on.  Then when 
>> you switch branches, they know everything that has to be deleted, 
>> etc. to get the state of the build tree right. 
>>
>> Dale 
>>
> -- 
> 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+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
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