On 19 October 2013 15:02, Charles Manning wrote:
> I suggest you work through the example again using something like gitk. That
> will show you what branches there are and show you the difference between
> the local and remote branches of the same name. Using gitk between
> operations is highly in
From: "Felipe Contreras"
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: [git-users] How to list branches
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Blake McBride
wrote:
I now see that the -a list option displays all of the branches. The
branch
names are preceded with remo
I suggest you work through the example again using something like gitk.
That will show you what branches there are and show you the difference
between the local and remote branches of the same name. Using gitk between
operations is highly instructive as you learn to use git.
Forget all you know a
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Blake McBride wrote:
> Thank you very much for the help! I have that book. I think I'll some
> reading. My mind is so SVN oriented that when I read the books I keep
> thinking 'but how would I do x? y? Z?' Perhaps x, y, and z don't make
> sense with this new
Thank you very much for the help! I have that book. I think I'll some
reading. My mind is so SVN oriented that when I read the books I keep
thinking 'but how would I do x? y? Z?' Perhaps x, y, and z don't make
sense with this new model.
>From what you are saying, I gather that branches cr
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Blake McBride wrote:
> I now see that the -a list option displays all of the branches. The branch
> names are preceded with remotes/origin. Don't know what that means or what
> is occurring when I check it out (from the local repository) to make it a
> local bran
I now see that the -a list option displays all of the branches. The branch
names are preceded with remotes/origin. Don't know what that means or what
is occurring when I check it out (from the local repository) to make it a
local branch. Again, I am lost. (I come from the subversion world wh
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Blake McBride wrote:
> I appreciate your response, but I don't think it is related to my question.
> My local repository is up-to-date as shown. I understand that my query's
> are against my local repository. The point is that git first reports one
> branch,
Bec
I appreciate your response, but I don't think it is related to my question.
My local repository is up-to-date as shown. I understand that my query's
are against my local repository. The point is that git first reports one
branch, and then it reports two, when nothing has changed in the local
Try typing "man git branch".
You will see that existing branches are shown. That means branches that
exist in your repository.
Once you check out versionx it will become a local branch.
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Blake McBride wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am having trouble getting up to s
Greetings,
I am having trouble getting up to speed with git. Your help is greatly
appreciated. For example:
blake@vm-mint-14 ~/Backup/gcl/gcl.git $ git pull
Already up-to-date.
blake@vm-mint-14 ~/Backup/gcl/gcl.git $ git branch
* master
blake@vm-mint-14 ~/Backup/gcl/gcl.git $ git checkout Vers
11 matches
Mail list logo
