From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sergey Organov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: git pull fails with merge conflicts. How can this possibly happen? Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 00:09:51 +0300 Message-ID: References: <20141114183737.GB3168@acm.acm> <5466517B.50705@porkrind.org> <20141114215404.GD3168@acm.acm> <838ujchods.fsf@gnu.org> <8761egx1k2.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83sihkg2ds.fsf@gnu.org> <83389hdd7u.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416258637 12872 80.91.229.3 (17 Nov 2014 21:10:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:10:37 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 17 22:10:28 2014 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 1XqTZ6-00084D-Nv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:10:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50284 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqTZ6-0008Ut-8r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:10:28 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52447) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqTYn-0008JI-OA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:10:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqTYh-00085b-PN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:10:09 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:41279) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqTYh-00084Z-Jf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:10:03 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XqTYg-0007rB-Rs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:10:02 +0100 Original-Received: from 89.175.180.246 ([89.175.180.246]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:10:02 +0100 Original-Received: from sorganov by 89.175.180.246 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:10:02 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 43 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.175.180.246 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:177495 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Sergey Organov >> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:38:13 +0300 >> >> > Second, too many things in Git are different, or are done differently, >> > or have different effect from their namesakes in other VCSes >> > (a.k.a. "have different semantics". At times, I have a distinct >> > feeling that Someone(TM) made a conscious effort to confuse me by >> > picking up a different semantics. Examples: >> >> | sed -e 's/Git/Emacs/g' | sed -e 's/VCS/Editor/g' >> >> and the result still holds. It's just that Git and Emacs have better >> ways of doing things than anything else out there ;-) > > I use Emacs for more than 20 years. If I used Git for so long, it's > highly probable that the above would have never been written. > > Moreover, the first programmer's editor I ever used, before I switched > to Emacs, was an Emacs clone, so I never needed to unlearn anything > even when I started using Emacs. > > As for nomenclature, Emacs is different because it did a > ground-breaking job: there was no "prior art" to follow at the time. > Git, OTOH, could have used the widely adopted terminology and > semantics, but instead deliberately chose not to. Doing things better > doesn't need a drastic change in terminology. I've used other editors before Emacs, and I've used other VCSes before Git. What I can say is that both tools have a nice property: the more you use them, the more you like them... well, at least so far... Other similar tools I used started to be annoyingly limited for me rather soon. > And I don't want to even start comparing the quality of the Emacs > documentation with that of Git. Git is young and it gets better. Give Git at least half of Emacs life-time... -- Sergey.