[OT] Question about Git branches
timothy.c.delaney at gmail.com
Tue Sep 16 14:50:19 CEST 2014
On 16 September 2014 22:14, Steven D'Aprano <
steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko at pacujo.net>
> >> "Frank Millman" <frank at chagford.com>:
> >>> You are encouraged to make liberal use of 'branches',
> >> Personally, I only use forks, IOW, "git clone". I encourage that
> >> practice. Then, there is little need for "git checkout". Instead, I just
> >> cd to a different directory.
> >> Branches and clones are highly analogous processwise; I would go so far
> >> as to say that they are redundant.
> > But rather than listening to, shall we say, *strange* advice like
> > this, Frank, you'll do well to pick up a reliable git tutorial, which
> > should explain branches, commits, the working tree, etc, etc, etc.
> Isn't this "strange advice" standard operating procedure in Mercurial? I'm
> not an expert on either hg or git, but if I've understood hg correctly, the
> way to begin an experimental branch is to use hg clone.
It depends entirely on how you're comfortable working. I tend to have a
clone per feature branch (they all push to the same central repo) and then
create a named branch per task (which may be a prototype, bugfix,
Makes it very easy to switch between tasks - I just update to a different
changeset (normally the tip of a named branch) and force a refresh in my
IDE. When I'm happy, I merge into the feature branch, then pull the
necessary changesets into other feature branch repos to merge/graft as
Branches and clones are two different ways of organising, and I find that
things work best for me when I use both.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-list