Re: [git-users] git GUI Create Branch Options
Say you tell git-gui to create branch mybranch, but it already exists. If update existing branch is turned off, it will be considered an error. If you say fastforward or force, it will move your branch to HEAD (or the commit iou specify). FF means it will move your branch only if it can be done by moving it forward in the commit history. I couldn't find a relevant option for git-branch, so I assume it will do a git merge mybranch --ff-only or similar. Force means to forcibly move the tip of the branch to the new location; for this there is a --force switch to git-branch. Best, Gergely On 28 Aug 2015 04:04, "Jeff" wrote: > The git GUI Create Branch dialog has some options at the bottom. > > I cannot find any documentation on what these mean. > The first item in the Options is called "Update Existing Branch" and there > are three choices: > "No" , "Fast Forward Only", and "Reset". > > What do these mean? > For what cases do they apply? > What would be the command line equivalent? > > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
Re: [git-users] Why git doesn't track file's "read"/"write" permission?
Yes, they are called deployment tools, which Git is not. One of the is git-deploy[1], but there are more out there. Also, I sense a design problem in your application if this is the case, although it's hard to tell from this much information. Best, Gergely [1] https://github.com/mislav/git-deploy On 28 Aug 2015 03:20, "Enzo Chi" wrote: > People make mistakes and if author change the permission and forget to > change it back, that can't be corrected by software (GIT). Git never knows > which file SHOULD be executable unless the author said so. The same as read > only. > > My argument is: (keep read-only) > 1. No harm > 2. Do benefit some people > 3. There's no technique issue to implement it. > > Off the topic, I use Emacs and there's extra key strokes to force write a > read-only file without change file permission. So 99.9% I will not make > that mistake. > > > Now come back to my case: > > I need a global configuration file for a software. If it is modified by > written some project specific information, when I run it in another > project, simulation may fail and it may cost me a lot time to realize some > crazy guy change it in another project. > > > So, If git can't track it, is there any solution (Linux platform) to make > sure selected files in repo are read-only after GIT operations (pull, > merge, clone .etc) automatically? > > Thanks. > > > > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 11:53:55 AM UTC+10, charlesmanning wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Enzo Chi wrote: >> >>> I think git track executable permission, right? >>> >>> If so, files in git is "read only" and "not deployment too", why it >>> track "x" permission? >>> >> >> x permissions alter the functionality of the file. >> >> For example, if you have a build system that needs scripts to build and >> those scripts need to be x, then the x better be stored or the scripts are >> useless. >> >> >>> >>> Keep "read only" permission is useful in some scenario. And most >>> important thing is there's on harm to keep it (I am not a software >>> developer, correct me if I am wrong)? >>> >> >> That does not achieve anything from a safety perspective. If you >> lose/alter a file then you just checkout the version in HEAD again. >> >> Getting r/w permissions right would be hell anyway. >> >> Consider this: >> >> Start with a readonly file. >> >> Now I need to change it, so I make is locally writable and change it. >> Then I do a commit and push it again. Oops! I forgot to make it read only >> again before I pushed it, so now it is writable in the repo too. >> >> Better to just dodge this hangover by not having r/w. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 6:55:55 AM UTC+10, Philip Oakley wrote: I have post an question at http://superuser.com/questions/962861/how-to-use-git-to-commit-read-only-file I just want to know why GIT doesn't track read/write permission? What I want is just GIT keep what every I checked in? ( I am OK with the executable permission control) It's sort of a philosophical issue. If you are placing a file into a repository, it is by definition "read only". You can never 'write' the same revision, but with a different content - it would be a contradiction. Hence the r/w flags are ignored. It's important to remember that as concieved, Git is not a deployment tool, so it didn't need r/w permissions, and as open source DVCS, everything checked out would be local so the user would have full control, so read-only couldn't be relied on anyway, and we hope the user will contribute a change/improvement so 'write' it is! Likewise it doesn't store timestamps (of the files) either.. There is a Linus 'rant' somewhere on the issue.. Philip >>> -- >>> 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. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
[git-users] git GUI Create Branch Options
The git GUI Create Branch dialog has some options at the bottom. I cannot find any documentation on what these mean. The first item in the Options is called "Update Existing Branch" and there are three choices: "No" , "Fast Forward Only", and "Reset". What do these mean? For what cases do they apply? What would be the command line equivalent? -- 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/d/optout.
Re: [git-users] Why git doesn't track file's "read"/"write" permission?
People make mistakes and if author change the permission and forget to change it back, that can't be corrected by software (GIT). Git never knows which file SHOULD be executable unless the author said so. The same as read only. My argument is: (keep read-only) 1. No harm 2. Do benefit some people 3. There's no technique issue to implement it. Off the topic, I use Emacs and there's extra key strokes to force write a read-only file without change file permission. So 99.9% I will not make that mistake. Now come back to my case: I need a global configuration file for a software. If it is modified by written some project specific information, when I run it in another project, simulation may fail and it may cost me a lot time to realize some crazy guy change it in another project. So, If git can't track it, is there any solution (Linux platform) to make sure selected files in repo are read-only after GIT operations (pull, merge, clone .etc) automatically? Thanks. On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 11:53:55 AM UTC+10, charlesmanning wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Enzo Chi > wrote: > >> I think git track executable permission, right? >> >> If so, files in git is "read only" and "not deployment too", why it track >> "x" permission? >> > > x permissions alter the functionality of the file. > > For example, if you have a build system that needs scripts to build and > those scripts need to be x, then the x better be stored or the scripts are > useless. > > >> >> Keep "read only" permission is useful in some scenario. And most >> important thing is there's on harm to keep it (I am not a software >> developer, correct me if I am wrong)? >> > > That does not achieve anything from a safety perspective. If you > lose/alter a file then you just checkout the version in HEAD again. > > Getting r/w permissions right would be hell anyway. > > Consider this: > > Start with a readonly file. > > Now I need to change it, so I make is locally writable and change it. > Then I do a commit and push it again. Oops! I forgot to make it read only > again before I pushed it, so now it is writable in the repo too. > > Better to just dodge this hangover by not having r/w. > > > >> >> >> >> On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 6:55:55 AM UTC+10, Philip Oakley wrote: >>> >>> >>> I have post an question at >>> http://superuser.com/questions/962861/how-to-use-git-to-commit-read-only-file >>> >>> >>> >>> I just want to know why GIT doesn't track read/write permission? >>> >>> What I want is just GIT keep what every I checked in? ( I am OK with the >>> executable permission control) >>> >>> >>> It's sort of a philosophical issue. If you are placing a file into a >>> repository, it is by definition "read only". You can never 'write' the same >>> revision, but with a different content - it would be a contradiction. Hence >>> the r/w flags are ignored. >>> >>> It's important to remember that as concieved, Git is not a deployment >>> tool, so it didn't need r/w permissions, and as open source DVCS, >>> everything checked out would be local so the user would have full control, >>> so read-only couldn't be relied on anyway, and we hope the user will >>> contribute a change/improvement so 'write' it is! >>> >>> Likewise it doesn't store timestamps (of the files) either.. >>> >>> There is a Linus 'rant' somewhere on the issue.. >>> >>> Philip >>> >> -- >> 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 . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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/d/optout.
