I'm actually very interested in your problem because I would like to know
if Git and this or that workflow are genuinely not up to scratch for your
needs.
In other words I'm interested to see what it is about your situation that
differs from some more pedestrian one.
You say "merging Word
This is extremely promising:
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/visualstudioalm/2017/02/03/announcing-gvfs-git-virtual-file-system/
--
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
gt; On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 12:36:57 PM UTC-7, Stephen Morton wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for your reply Hugh. Have a look at my follow up reply earlier in
>>> the thread where I use Microsoft and the XBOX as an analogy. You should get
>>> the idea.
>>>
>
th git that makes it
> untrustworthy for enterprise coding, IMO. I would get a license for
> SVN from Tigris, use a conversion tool for transferring your repo, and
> try that.
>
> Marxos
>
>
> On 2/6/17, Hugh Gleaves <hugh.g...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > I'd l
://www.linuxforums.org/forum/
These are just better UIs and more friendly that these other character
oriented systems - IMHO
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 12:26:20 PM UTC-7, Magnus Therning wrote:
>
>
> Hugh Gleaves <hugh.g...@gmail.com > writes:
>
> > SmartGit is the best way t
I'm questioning the overall wisdom of what you describe Lowell.
Why not just have a single repository? Doing that eliminates all of the
fussing you describe.
If the "other" repos are little more than holding pens for stuff to
eventually get merged into your primary repo, then why? this is what
hould get
> the idea.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 at 14:33 Hugh Gleaves <hugh.g...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> First here's a summary of what I setup for a small team:
>>
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14865283/proper-git-workflo
, enabling them to focus on their work.
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-7, John McKown wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Magnus Therning <mag...@therning.org
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Hugh Gleaves <hugh.g...@gmail.com > writes:
>>
>
First here's a summary of what I setup for a small team:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14865283/proper-git-workflow-scheme-with-multiple-developers-working-on-same-task/41753291#41753291
You say "big merge" and "lots of conflicts" I wonder why this is happening?
Tell me what do you mean by
I would argue that all of these complaints are because the user does not
fully understand what's happening, Git is not intuitive (in the sense it
does not follow patterns of earlier source control systems). Git is very
well designed indeed, very good.
See my other reply too where I describe a
Don't start forming a negative perception of Git, tempting though this is!
I had Git and Github dumped on me two years ago and had little help from
coworkers back then, I tried very hard to get a solid grasp of it and it
took me months, but after all that I can now tell you are using a very
I'm newish to Git and see that it seems to do change detection using a line
by line kind of algorithm.
Is there any way to get Git to be more intelligent, for example when
comparing a source file to some earlier version don't just use the
line-by-line compare but instead use a compare that is
12 matches
Mail list logo
