4 ms·
So basically this is a way to change git's verbs? I haven't ever found them that obtrusive. No worse than learning some language syntax
by greghinch 14y ago
So basically this is a way to change git's verbs? I haven't ever found them that obtrusive. No worse than learning some language syntax
- kenneth_reitz 14y agoThis project is all about workflow. The workflow provided by 'git sync' normally takes five commands: $ git stash $ git fetch $ git merge origin/$current-branch $ git push origin $current-branch $ git unstash It's actually slightly fancier than that, the push actually reduces merge commits but doesn't rewrite your merges. Same as GitHub for Mac.
- anonymous 14y agoActually it's just $ git pull --rebase If you do have local changes, then you would need to git stash/stash --pop before/after that command. I use rebase to keep down on unneeded merges for the common case of having exactly one upstream and not merging several branches together.
- kenneth_reitz 14y agoIf you simplify like so, it is still push and pull. One less thing to type.
- greghinch 14y agoI'll never understand this subset of the development community who is obsessed with saving a few keystrokes. It almost invariably comes at the cost of flexibility, and creates a set of developers who only know the abstraction. I'm looking at you, jQuery.
- greghinch 14y agoI think I prefer typing a few extra characters to have control of each step.
- StringyBob 14y agoThat's entirely the issue with Git for me. From the point of view of a programmer this is basic; obfuscation even. I'd love to take advantage of less painful merging/branching etc, but I work with engineers with a completely different domain of expertise - code is a means to an end. 50% of them refuse to use Git, and only accept svn grudgingly.