[webkit-dev] Moving to Git?
rniwa at webkit.org
Thu Mar 8 13:25:56 PST 2012
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jochen Eisinger <jochen at chromium.org>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at webkit.org> wrote:
>> The simplicity. In git, I have to worry about things like committing
>> local changes before rebasing to master, or stashing, etc... In svn, all I
>> have to do is to run "svn up".
> I wonder, do you really run svn up that much? I'd expect that this breaks
> your checkout every now and then if some dependencies change. I usually run
> update-webkit, which should hide the rebasing actions from you
I do that at least 5-6 times a day if not more.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:58 PM, John Yani <vanuan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think so. I like the simplicity of svn. While git client works
> > great, I always get frustrated by the complexity of having multiple
> > locally and the amount of work required to merge the remote changes on
> > branch I'm working on.
> What do you mean?
> # fetch from origin master and merge into the current branch
> git pull origin master
Huh? That's not equivalent to svn up at all.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Joe Mason <jmason at rim.com> wrote:
> What Ryosuke seems to be complaining about is that if you have changes to
> your working copy, "svn up" will automatically merge them, which could lead
> to conflicts you have to untangle, while "git pull --rebase" will give an
> error telling you you must commit or stash them first. So the real
> equivalent to "svn up" is "git stash && git pull --rebase origin/master &&
> git stash pop". And "git stash pop" will start pretty much the same
> merging process as svn's if there are conflicts.
Right. But I can't bother to type that much myself. Maybe my complain will
go away if someone had implemented webkit-patch up that does this
This is only slightly more complicated
I'd say astoundingly more complicated because of
and has the benefit that if something goes wrong, your changes remain
> explicitly in the git stash, where you can get at them with commands like
> "git stash show" or "git stash branch"
> whereas unless svn has features I don't know about, if "svn up" does
> unexpected things the only record of your changes is a series of conflict
> markers you'll need to resolve.
But I can just run svn diff to create a backup if I really wanted to save
the original change. But I've never had a trouble merging things so it's
hard for me to tell if that's really useful or not.
And you can always make a "git-up" script that does "git stash && git pull
> --rebase origin/master && git stash pop", so the command you type won't
> even be any longer than "svn up", but will give you more safety.
That'll certainly be an improvement. I still dislike git hashes though. If
someone implements such a script in webkit-patch and we can automatically
assign svn-revision like numbers to all commits, I can be convinced to use
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the webkit-dev