Is that what you do?
- Gordon
-Original Message-
From: Dasa Paddock [mailto:dpadd...@esri.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 3:38 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Git's branches are cheap and fast but modal model
You could use the stash command:
Ha,
I just had this same scenario today and was talking to Roland about it.
I'm learning the darker recesses if GIT now to Gordon since I am
working with more people. Its really easy when the team is not
complicated.
I asked this exact same question, Why would I commit, if I'm not
ready
Hi,
When you work on a branch, and you want to work on another branch, you first
have to commit in the current branch you working on to save your work.
Git checkout branch is not quite the same as switching branches in SVN. If
there is no conflicting changes all of your current changes will
If there is no conflicting changes all of your current changes will be kept
but you'll now be working in the new branch.
That's exactly the problem, because this is hardly ever what I want. The
solution seems to be to commit prematurely, or stash into a stack where you
lose track which
The stash name includes the branch it came from.
On Mar 19, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Gordon Smith gosm...@adobe.com
wrote:
If there is no conflicting changes all of your current changes will be kept
but you'll now be working in the new branch.
That's exactly the problem, because this is hardly
True,
I'm no fan boy Gordon... I have read many times this has been the
problem with GIT for years is that it was created be developers for
developers. They add things in the core that make sense to them or as
an after thought no thinking of the implications of what they are doing.
So
