Re: New sync'd branch

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>>> Yes, it is reasonably easy to blow up some operation terribly if you
>>>> don't know what you are doing.  Because git has lots of power.  But
>>>> you always can tell it: "Ok, this was a complete messup.  Give me
>>>> back what I had 20 minutes ago".
>>>
>>> I'll really apreciate a tool that does not make me waste those 20
>>> minutes.
>>
>> It saves you hours elsewhere.
>
> Compared against the other DVCS's? Not on my experience. git's speed
> advantage is not *that* large.

I did not say "hours in computing time".  Hours in manual labor.

>>>> It is very hard to actually do something which can't be undone.  You
>>>> have to really try.
>>>
>>> And this is different from other VCSs how?
>>
>> No impact on a central repository even when you tried some complex merge
>> and got it wrong.  Nobody gets to see your damaged foot.  You just
>> messed up your personal sandbox temporarily.
>
> I insist: and this is different from other VCS how?

First, it is different from all central-repository version control systems.

> Does git block you from sending your changes upstream when you messed
> up your personal repo?

Why would you want to send them upstream?

> If you screw up your personal branch, bzr notices it and maliciously
> sends the changes upstream without you asking for it?

If I screw up my personal branch, there won't be a copy upstream that I
can revert to.  That's what "personal branch" is all about.  In git, I
can revert my personal branch to its version of two hours ago without
ever bothering upstream, either read or write.  I can reconstitute _my_
branch.

>>> The typical Emacs developer is not like Torvads.  Emacs has a
>>> development style that is very far from Linux's.  Every example about
>>> how well git works specifically for Torvalds is moot.
>>
>> That sounds like "nobody will ever need a car, because people ride
>> horses quite differently than they would ride a car".
>
> Often, a car is the worst option as a vehicle.

I think we can stop here.

-- 
David Kastrup