4 ms·
> It's complaining because I've modified README locally, which was also modified remotely. Every other reasonable version control system I've ever used will hap
by xentronium 16y ago
> It's complaining because I've modified README locally, which was also modified remotely. Every other reasonable version control system I've ever used will happily merge the upstream changes with my not-yet-committed local changes. But Git refuses. This is annoying.
No it isn't. Git is trying to be predictable.
> Like suppose I was working on one change when I realized that there's something else I should really fix first.
Branches are designed to resolve this problem. When you want to do something that takes a lot of time, you branch from the stable version. When you need to do something else, you branch from the stable version again.
- haberman 16y agoYou are completely ignoring my objection that I don't want to "commit" a tree that is totally broken. What should my commit message be? "Tree is totally broken and doesn't compile, but Git made me do this to pull upstream changes." There is nothing logical/reasonable for me to write in that commit message. I definitely don't want that commit to make it upstream. Sure, I could squash later, but why is Git forcing me to do something that doesn't have any value (write a "commit" message for a tree that is totally broken)?
- branden 16y agoStash, pull, stash pop. Arguably not the most intuitive solution, but there ya go.
- haberman 16y agoAlso, I say that something is annoying to me, and you say "No it isn't." How can you deny that something is annoying to me? Ignoring what a user actually wants because it's not what you think they should want is the classic hacker UI design failing.