I sent this and the next email to another list and didn't get any response--
I've partially resolved my issue (see next post), and I'm also beginning to
understand that branches might also solve my issue (but patches see more
I'm resending it here as I welcome comments and suggestions:
I am probably using git in an unusual way.
I want to do some development for a project that is managed by Mercurial
(scite / scintilla), but, for the sake of learning git (and minimizing the
need to learn anything else) I want to use git for the work I do.
I've downloaded the source code as tarballs (which are available--I could also
have downloaded the source code using Mercurial, but, as long as the tarballs
are available, I'd prefer to do it using tarballs).
I originally downloaded version 3.66 of the source code, untarred it into a
working directory, initialized a git repository, and then added and committed
the source code to the git repository.
So far, I haven't actually made any changes to the source code.
Now version 3.70 is available, and I sort of repeated the process, that is, I
untarred the new version into the working directory that I had previously
created, then did a git status--it seemed to recognize the modified files,
I then added and committed.
So far, so good.
But, I'm not sure how to handle further updates after I've made local changes
to the source code.
The one approach I can think of is to create a patch file before I download the
next update, then download and untar the next update, and then apply that
patch file (while doing git adds and commits at the appropriate times, which I
have to think about).
But the patch file approach seems rather cumbersome and un-git (and un-CMS)
like--is there a better approach?
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
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.