On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 11:37:13PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:

> > By "svn-like", I mean the people whose workflow is:
> >
> >   $ hack hack hack
> >   $ git commit
> >   $ git push ;# oops, somebody else pushed in the meantime
> >   $ git pull
> >   $ git push
> But that's not svn-like at all.

It's not if you understand the difference between merge-then-commit and
commit-then-merge. But for a clueless user who has been told "replace
svn commit" with "git commit && git push" and replace "svn update" with
"git pull", it is quite similar.

> > Those people would now have to learn enough to choose between merge and
> > rebase when running the "git pull".
> But that's only if they don't care about the shape of history. In my
> experience the people that cling more to centralized VCS do not like
> merges, so they rebase everything to make it a straight line. That is
> much more "svn-like".
> So chances are they are already doing 'git pull --rebase' (or
> similar), so their workflow wouldn't be affected.

I think we are talking about two classes of users. People who truly
don't care about the shape of history will also not care about using
"git pull --rebase", because the only reason to use it is to impact the
shape of history.

I agree there is also a set of people coming from the centralized vcs
world who want to keep a linear history.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to