4 ms·

Committing without pushing is not a problem (unless you intended to push but forgot to?) It is not a concept that necessarily exists in traditional centralized

by Crito 13y ago

Committing without pushing is not a problem (unless you intended to push but forgot to?) It is not a concept that necessarily exists in traditional centralized version control systems, but the fundamental problem still exists. In SVN "forgetting to push" is just called "forgetting to commit". If your team member forgot to push and you put out new changes, that is a problem for him to resolve. If you forgot to push, and your team member put out new changes, that is a problem for you to resolve. Workflow wise, this all works the same as it does with any other centralized workflow. If you forget to check for updates... well that is something that happens in other centralized schemes as well. You figure it out when you go to push and it fails, you correct it, then you are good to go.

lmm 13y ago
> Committing without pushing is not a problem (unless you intended to push but forgot to?) It is not a concept that necessarily exists in traditional centralized version control systems, but the fundamental problem still exists. In SVN "forgetting to push" is just called "forgetting to commit". Sure, but you hit the problem twice as often in git, because you have to do twice as many things. > If you forget to check for updates... well that is something that happens in other centralized schemes as well. You figure it out when you go to push and it fails, you correct it, then you are good to go. In SVN that doesn't show up as a merge in the history.
- NickNameNick 13y ago
  In SVN, that shows up as a conflict which has to be merged by hand. 'git rebase' and/or 'git mergetool' are nicer.
- Crito 13y ago
  > "Sure, but you hit the problem twice as often in git, because you have to do twice as many things." Well no, I don't... If this really is a frequent problem for you, then you might want to consider adding a note to the end of git-commit's output to remind you to push, or even just aliasing git-commit to push by default. I would recommend that you instead learn how to use git, but failing that... > "In SVN that doesn't show up as a merge in the history." If you don't want to resolve those situations with a merge, then don't resolve those situations with a merge... Rebasing exists for a reason.
- __david__ 13y ago
  > In SVN that doesn't show up as a merge in the history. You might like "git pull --rebase"

by Crito 13y ago

lmm 13y ago

> Committing without pushing is not a problem (unless you intended to push but forgot to?) It is not a concept that necessarily exists in traditional centralized version control systems, but the fundamental problem still exists. In SVN "forgetting to push" is just called "forgetting to commit". Sure, but you hit the problem twice as often in git, because you have to do twice as many things. > If you forget to check for updates... well that is something that happens in other centralized schemes as well. You figure it out when you go to push and it fails, you correct it, then you are good to go. In SVN that doesn't show up as a merge in the history.

NickNameNick 13y ago
In SVN, that shows up as a conflict which has to be merged by hand. 'git rebase' and/or 'git mergetool' are nicer.
Crito 13y ago
> "Sure, but you hit the problem twice as often in git, because you have to do twice as many things." Well no, I don't... If this really is a frequent problem for you, then you might want to consider adding a note to the end of git-commit's output to remind you to push, or even just aliasing git-commit to push by default. I would recommend that you instead learn how to use git, but failing that... > "In SVN that doesn't show up as a merge in the history." If you don't want to resolve those situations with a merge, then don't resolve those situations with a merge... Rebasing exists for a reason.
__david__ 13y ago
> In SVN that doesn't show up as a merge in the history. You might like "git pull --rebase"