From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: VC mode and git Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:58:48 +0300 Message-ID: <83wq1xrtmf.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86egoeusg2.fsf@example.com> <87384qzxqy.fsf@igel.home> <83bnjen71r.fsf@gnu.org> <871tk6538w.fsf@gnu.org> <838ueezgyk.fsf@gnu.org> <878ueejnjz.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83twx2xoc8.fsf@gnu.org> <87619hke3u.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <551A3F17.6020903@math.ntnu.no> <551A59F1.3060602@math.ntnu.no> <551ABE91.4020408@math.ntnu.no> <83zj6trwss.fsf@gnu.org> <551ACD10.1070600@math.ntnu.no> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1427821188 16414 80.91.229.3 (31 Mar 2015 16:59:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:59:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: schwab@suse.de, stephen@xemacs.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Harald Hanche-Olsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 31 18:59:32 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YczVa-000886-Kl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:59:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39694 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YczVU-0007X4-V0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:59:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60375) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YczVJ-0007Wy-23 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:59:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YczVF-0004r5-Sb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:59:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:38569) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YczVF-0004qt-LA; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:59:01 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NM300H005IBZO00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:59:00 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NM300HH05UBY850@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:59:00 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <551ACD10.1070600@math.ntnu.no> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:184654 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:36:32 +0200 > From: Harald Hanche-Olsen > CC: schwab@suse.de, stephen@xemacs.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gn= u.org >=20 > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:34:41 +0200 > >> From: Harald Hanche-Olsen > >> Cc: stephen@xemacs.org, Richard Stallman, emacs-dev= el@gnu.org > >> > >> But Richard just said that =E2=80=9Cchecking in=E2=80=9D=E2=80= =9A to him, means putting it in > >> the central repository. > >> > >> A better phrasing is: Commit, then pull. > > > > No, it's better for Richard to pull, then checkin. That's closer= to > > what he is used to, and even if there's trouble (pull fails due t= o > > uncommitted changes), that trouble is closer in spirit to what he > > would have in a similar situation with CVS and bzr, so it would b= e > > easier for him to understand the situation and fix it. >=20 > Okay, now you have me terminally confused. >=20 > What do you mean by checkin here? The same as you: put in the upstream repository. IOW, commit, then push. > To be more specific, my suggestion is >=20 > git commit > git pull > deal with conflicts, if any, ending with another git commit > git push >=20 > Are you saying it is better for Richard to do git pull before git= =20 > commit, if he has uncommited changes? Yes.