3 ms·

No, you don't interpret correctly. It was not 3 days of uncommitted changes, it was committing some changes after hacking for three days. Completely different

No, you don't interpret correctly. It was not 3 days of uncommitted changes, it was committing some changes after hacking for three days. Completely different thing. The 3 days was relevant because I was tired and my first assumption is that I had done something wrong. It turns out there was a nasty bug. Also, I don't think my workflow is that broken: "Linus often performs patch applications and merges in a dirty work tree with a clean index." [1] http://gitster.livejournal.com/29060.html http://gitster.livejournal.com/29060.html If I am pulling down some unrelated changes, it is not unreasonable to do that. That is one of the features that git provides. I know perfectly well how to use git, in a number of different work flows, and I use whichever is most appropriate for the given project at the given time. Also, I don't think my post was complaining. It wasn't 'OMG git is the worst, I'm never using it again', it was an analysis of a particular nasty corner case in git.

jamieb 15y ago
You referenced that article to claim that Linus does what you did. But that article is quite clear that Linus does not do what you do: He either reverts, commits or stashes first. Had you done that you would not have had your problem. Its one thing to fuck up and get panned on HN. Its another to go looking for justification that you are right. Its yet another to select a single quote from an article to justify your position when the entirety of the article refutes your claim. You did a great public service by calling attention to this problem (the problem being not using git properly - nobody is going to hold that against you). Don't ruin it now by getting all defensive.
- bennoleslie 15y ago
  Sorry, that did come across as a bit defensive. However, I think if you read the whole article carefully it explains that after doing a git pull, and git refusing to merge because of outstanding changes you then have a chance to either 'revert, commit, or stash'. That is exactly the behaviour I expect from git, and exactly what broke down in this case.

jamieb 15y ago

You referenced that article to claim that Linus does what you did. But that article is quite clear that Linus does not do what you do: He either reverts, commits or stashes first. Had you done that you would not have had your problem. Its one thing to fuck up and get panned on HN. Its another to go looking for justification that you are right. Its yet another to select a single quote from an article to justify your position when the entirety of the article refutes your claim. You did a great public service by calling attention to this problem (the problem being not using git properly - nobody is going to hold that against you). Don't ruin it now by getting all defensive.

bennoleslie 15y ago
Sorry, that did come across as a bit defensive. However, I think if you read the whole article carefully it explains that after doing a git pull, and git refusing to merge because of outstanding changes you then have a chance to either 'revert, commit, or stash'. That is exactly the behaviour I expect from git, and exactly what broke down in this case.