On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 09:51:53AM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > > Or simpler, turn your commits into a sequence of patches, clone the > > author's repo, apply your patches to the clone, issue pull request. > > Better IMO than playing git --russian roulette with its powerful but > > underdocumented tools for doing unusual stuff.
I agree that often the commands seem underdocumented. Or at least, the crazy amount of power they give (muahahahahaha) is somewhat out of all proportion to the documentation. But I continue to be impressed by how git consistently gets things right when merging changes made to files which have been renamed (or bails out, but I've never yet seen it think it got it right and really balls it up). And as long as you don't throw away the terminal output, push anything or run `git gc`, there's always about 30 days to recover from any mess* from the various internal reflogs. > I really don’t get the fear. Be afraid of your tools and they’ll give > you reason to be. Or: Do not be afraid of cooking, as your ingredients will know, and misbehave. although I don't know what is the software equivalent of a meat cleaver, to threaten the vegetables, er software, into compliance. So this might be a problem. Nicholas Clark * Other than git reset --hard
