From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Stash Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:13:53 -0400 Message-ID: References: <86sice77h0.fsf@dod.no> <83iod9lnp0.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1428423292 19118 80.91.229.3 (7 Apr 2015 16:14:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 16:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: sb@dod.no, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 07 18:14:38 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 1YfW97-0001Dl-DF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 18:14:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46865 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YfW96-0008NM-J9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:14:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55963) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YfW8X-0008BB-0q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:14:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YfW8R-0006wG-B7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:14:00 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:36910) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YfW8R-0006wB-8p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:13:55 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YfW8P-0002w4-Rs; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:13:54 -0400 In-reply-to: <83iod9lnp0.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Mon, 06 Apr 2015 10:29:15 +0300) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:185081 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > This is the main part that describes the "merge" step of "git pull": > it says it performed a "fast-forward" (see below), and then shows one > line for each updated file with "diffstat" form of statistics of > changes in each file. The last line is a summary of the changes. > As you see, this is not very different from what CVS and bzr displayed > in these circumstances. Here are some important differences: * cvs up indicates in a very visible way which files I have local changes in. What's more, if it mentions many other files, I can do cvs up again immediately and see ONLY the files I have local changes in. * cvs up will not "fail". The worst that can happen is that some file has a conflict, and if I don't bother with it immediately, I will get reminded of it later. * git pull outputs lots of unhelpful detail when nothing is wrong. To READ all that would be a useless pain in the neck, so I only checked to see when it finished. Thus, on the occasion when (we now suspect) it reported a real problem, I didn't notice. > The only major difference It is a mistake to focus on "major" (i.e., fundamental) differences. A superficial difference can have a big effect on reliability. The three differences above may not be major, but they are very important. between "git pull" and "cvs/bzr update" is > that the latter didn't expose the "fetch" and the "merge" parts to the > user (CVS couldn't expose it because everything was done on the > server). People said that git merge can fail for another reason (I forget what), not only because of conflicts. It looked like that might be what happened to me, which led me to edit an old lisp/ChangeLog file even though I had just done a git pull. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.