4 ms·

For the life of me, I could not figure out why he would not save his changes before pulling stuff down on top of them. Some people still go days without saving

For the life of me, I could not figure out why he would not save his changes before pulling stuff down on top of them. Some people still go days without saving, which is foolish in my opinion. Change a function (or similar unit), and save. Rule for dummies: save before leaving for the day (but that's not granular enough).

EdiX 15y ago
> For the life of me, I could not figure out why he would not save his changes before pulling stuff down on top of them. He appears to be using git with the svn workflow (svn update; svn commit).
- Roboprog 15y ago
  OK, thanks for the reminder. Even back when I did use SVN regularly at work, we usually worked on feature branches, and seldom ran into collisions requiring that process. I'd forgotten that SVN will force an updage (merge) before commit in some cases. It had not occurred to me that somebody would internalize that as SOP.
- barrkel 15y ago
  That's not my svn workflow; it's svn diff to a patch file, svn revert, svn update, then patch from the patch file (and resolve conflicts if necessary with a decent third-party tool), then finally svn commit. I run svn diff multiple times a day. I frequently have many different patches related to different functional areas and bug fixes. Effectively I work with local branches implemented on top of svn. I have a whole suit of scripts that automate this. Seemed like the only workable way to use svn in a disconnected fashion to me.
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > Effectively I work with local branches implemented on top of svn. I have a whole suit of scripts that automate this. Seemed like the only workable way to use svn in a disconnected fashion to me. Why don't you just use git-svn or hgsubversion and stop doing that informally? Or at the very list use something like `quilt`, so that your changes are represented as a stack of patches on your svn "upstream"
    - barrkel 15y ago
      I've already discussed it elsewhere on this site earlier, I'm not about to go into it again, sorry.
      - barrkel 15y ago
        Interesting that apologising for not replying in more detail, yet hinting at where to find previous discussion of that detail, is treated with such hostility! I'll simply not reply at all in future, in such cases.
alinajaf 15y ago
Even without committing, you should at the very least run `git stash` before doing a pull. That's the very reason the command exists!
bennoleslie 15y ago
They were obviously saved. I was simply pulling before committing, which is a supported work flow of the tool. I don't think I ever said I went days without committing.

EdiX 15y ago

> For the life of me, I could not figure out why he would not save his changes before pulling stuff down on top of them. He appears to be using git with the svn workflow (svn update; svn commit).

Roboprog 15y ago
OK, thanks for the reminder. Even back when I did use SVN regularly at work, we usually worked on feature branches, and seldom ran into collisions requiring that process. I'd forgotten that SVN will force an updage (merge) before commit in some cases. It had not occurred to me that somebody would internalize that as SOP.
barrkel 15y ago
That's not my svn workflow; it's svn diff to a patch file, svn revert, svn update, then patch from the patch file (and resolve conflicts if necessary with a decent third-party tool), then finally svn commit. I run svn diff multiple times a day. I frequently have many different patches related to different functional areas and bug fixes. Effectively I work with local branches implemented on top of svn. I have a whole suit of scripts that automate this. Seemed like the only workable way to use svn in a disconnected fashion to me.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > Effectively I work with local branches implemented on top of svn. I have a whole suit of scripts that automate this. Seemed like the only workable way to use svn in a disconnected fashion to me. Why don't you just use git-svn or hgsubversion and stop doing that informally? Or at the very list use something like `quilt`, so that your changes are represented as a stack of patches on your svn "upstream"
  - barrkel 15y ago
    I've already discussed it elsewhere on this site earlier, I'm not about to go into it again, sorry.
    - barrkel 15y ago
      Interesting that apologising for not replying in more detail, yet hinting at where to find previous discussion of that detail, is treated with such hostility! I'll simply not reply at all in future, in such cases.

alinajaf 15y ago

Even without committing, you should at the very least run `git stash` before doing a pull. That's the very reason the command exists!

bennoleslie 15y ago

They were obviously saved. I was simply pulling before committing, which is a supported work flow of the tool. I don't think I ever said I went days without committing.