Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.misc    |    General topics about computers not cover    |    21,759 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 21,573 of 21,759    |
|    Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOlivei to Ben Collver    |
|    Re: From Git To Fossil SCM    |
|    19 Nov 25 20:25:06    |
      From: ldo@nz.invalid              On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 17:11:27 -0000 (UTC), Ben Collver wrote:              > * It's simpler to use and it feels more natural (at least for       > someone who knows other systems such as Subversion) because it       > does not contain overkill functionalities such as the staging       > area, which may be useful in large and complex projects such as       > the Linux kernel, but for me they have no practical use.              The need for explicit git-add is very useful even in single-person       projects.              For example, I spend several hours making and testing a bunch of       changes to the working source tree. At the end of it, once I’m       satisfied the code has reached a suitable point, I realize that my       changes are more naturally grouped into multiple commits, rather than       a single one.              So now I use “git add -e” and review the resulting patch, putting       together the first commit by taking out everything I want to leave for       later commits. Then I commit what’s left, with a suitable       descrfiption.              Back into “git add -e” again, to put together the next commit, and so       on, until it’s all done. Except I might leave out some debug lines,       that I don’t want to include in the final source.              In the process, I might hand-edit a line here and a line there, to       disentangle separate changes for which the source only holds the       combined effect. This means creating intermediate versions of the       source code that never actually existed as explicit files in the       source tree.              Git gives you the flexibility to work this way, if you choose.              > * Commit messages don't use email addresses, they use user names so       > if you have a public repository you don't have to be worried about       > spam and you don't need a specific email address for this use       > only.              There was never a requirement for you to use *valid* email addresses       ...              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca