[git-users] managing only-local changes
When I am working with a certain git repo I need to make a 1 line change to the Makefile (for adapting to my paths) So then whenever I do git pull I get error: Your local changes to the following files would be overwritten by merge: Makefile Please, commit your changes or stash them before you can merge. What is the normal approach to solving this? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] managing only-local changes
is it a repo that you only use or a repo where you contribute to? if you only receive (git pull) but never contribute (git push), then i would commit your changes locally. then subsequent updates will be merged with your local change until somebody else modifies and git pushes the path, which brings me to the second part: if you also contribute to the repo then i would change your Makefile: separate it into a generic part and a specific part (Makefile.config, included in Makefile). it would then make sense to take Makefile.config outside of version control. typically configure generates Makefile.config. since it is different on each machine it does not make sense to track it in the origin repo. good luck! On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:55:02 +0100, Rustom Mody wrote: When I am working with a certain git repo I need to make a 1 line change to the Makefile (for adapting to my paths) So then whenever I do git pull I get error: Your local changes to the following files would be overwritten by merge: Makefile Please, commit your changes or stash them before you can merge. What is the normal approach to solving this? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
[git-users] Re: managing only-local changes
The normal approach is pretty much what the error message says: Either commit first, or stash the changes. Example of the latter approach: $ git pull $ git stash save $ git pull $ git stash pop -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/git-users/-/sTEO80x-O_sJ. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
[git-users] Re: Git "revision number"
On Saturday, November 19, 2011, Konstantin Khomoutov < flatw...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:20:03 -0800 > PJ Weisberg wrote: >> The more I think about it, though, the more I think I could probably >> get away with using a timestamp for what I had in mind. > I'm curious about what do you have in mind; could you please explain? A while ago, someone at $work made a mini-webapp that shows a chart of which versions of various projects are deployed to which QA servers and which customer sites. Out-of-date versions (with a lower version number) are highlighted. One of the newer projects that another team created is showing "ERR" for the version, because it has a Git SHA1 instead of an SVN revision number. I was looking for the minimal change I could make to make it Git-compatible, which I thought would be a version number like what's shown in `git describe'. (Ideally I didn't want to disrupt the layout by using something much wider than our current 4-digit SVN rev numbers, but that's not really important.) Since the main usecases are answering questions like: Is $foo up to date? Which customers are WAY out of date? Does $customer_site have the bugfix we made last week? I'm pretty sure a datestamp would be enough for the at-a-glance view. -- -PJ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
[git-users] Re: Git "revision number"
I had similar problem with our customers - they are used to version numbers. So we modified our history to keep the number of commits since first adding. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/git-users/-/6gvmqfTopVsJ. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] Re: managing only-local changes
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen wrote: > The normal approach is pretty much what the error message says: Either > commit first, or stash the changes. Example of the latter approach: > > $ git pull > > $ git stash save > $ git pull > $ git stash pop > > > Beautiful -- Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] managing only-local changes
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:59 PM, radovan bast wrote: > is it a repo that you only use or a repo where you contribute to? > > > if you also contribute to the repo then i would change your Makefile: > separate it into a generic part and a specific part (Makefile.config, > included in Makefile). > it would then make sense to take Makefile.config outside of version > control. > Thanks. That brings up matter for another thread but for now I just want to say that you mean I guess?? Makefile.config : specific part Makefile: generic part [Just for anyone else who reads this thread] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
[git-users] Re: Git "revision number"
Peter, I would solve this in the CI (build) server. They usually support build timestamps and releasing (for example adding a version number to pom.xml). The SCM Commit Id can be stored in addition for cases where you might not have clean releases to differentiate. For example with Jboss AS 7, you find them in the Manifest of each JAR file. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/git-users/-/hFraon-UER8J. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
