Re: GIT and CVS

Phil Muldoon
2011-10-14T15:05:58Z

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:53:56 +0200
>> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
>> Cc: eliz@gnu.org, pmuldoon@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:22:53 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> > $ cvs update
>> > (test changes, write changelog, send diff for review)
>> [...]
>> > With lots of "cvs diff" invocations in between to check my changes and
>> > remind myself what I'm working on.
>>
>> Replace `cvs update' by: git stash; git pull; git stash pop
>
> But with bzr, you just say "bzr update" and that's it.
>
>> Replace `cvs diff' by: git diff HEAD
>
> But with bzr, you just say "bzr diff".

If you have your git config setup right, you can use "git pull" to fetch
and merge changes in, and "git diff" to get a diff. In fact you can
configure GIT in multiple variations. I think that is the strength of
GIT. It allows you to use the tool your way, not necessarily how GIT
thinks you should. That being said, it gives you enough rope, but then
again, so does CVS.

>
>> (not sure if the latter is needed but IMO it simplifies some assumptions)
>
> It is indeed one of my problems with git that I'm never sure what will
> happen if I omit certain arguments that are supposed to be the
> default. But I always thought that was because I don't use git
> enough. However, if people like you, who do it all the time, are
> still uncertain, then I guess it is something to consider when
> selecting a VCS.
>
>> > and I have to commit half-finished work,
>>
>> You don't have to.
>
> You mean, you can pull or merge when you have uncommitted changes?

git pull

or

git fetch/git merge

If a conflict arises you have to git stash, then do above, then git
stash pop. Or you can just commit your changes locally. The choice is
yours.

This is not how things are right now with CVS, but those steps are not
onerous.

Cheers,

Phil