On 2016-11-09, at 6:18 AM, René J.V. Bertin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday November 09 2016 13:01:42 Christopher Jones wrote: > >> In my view, no it is not practical. Pull requests are to pull one branch, >> all diffs, from one to another. This is why I maintain the sooner people get >> use to the idea of making a separate branch for each piece of work, and pull >> request, the faster they will make progress with working with git. This is >> actually the power of git, not a hindrance. But it takes time for newcomers >> to git to realise this ;) > > So, the power of git is that it's not practical? A bit like how medicine is > supposed not to taste good? :) Pull Requests are NOT GIT. Pull requests are GITHUB Git is practical. With git, and it took me a while to learn this, when you clone a repository, commit to your repository, and then push upstream to the clone source, your clone source has both their commits and your commits, and can cherry-pick which of yours they want to include. Now, cherry picking may be difficult. I don't know. I have never used the built-in cherry pick -- I've used a GUI that lets me select line by line / hunk by hunk of the stuff committed, and git's native cherry-pick is whole commit at a time. But the idea of "Put each item on their own branch" is still a good idea. Git likes lots of small branches that get merged back in. Branches are cheap. I understand that this is the opposite of svn, that regards lots of branches as somewhat expensive. --- Entertaining minecraft videos http://YouTube.com/keybounce
