Re: Git transition workflow

[Sergey Organov]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

> Achim Gratz writes:
>  > Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
>  > >     Daily work
>  > >     If you’re using the command-line:
>  > >
>  > >     git pull
>  > >
>  > > May I suggest to change this to
>  > >  
>  > >     git pull --rebase / git pull -r
>  > >
>  > > or we're going to see a whole lot of merge commits.
>
> This requires people who don't already know how to "git rebase" to
> learn it (I mean the resolution workflow, not the command, of course).
> It will get a lot of pushback, and I expect that those users will
> revert to "git pull".  On the other hand, merge conflicts are familiar
> from ancient times, and doesn't require learning a new workflow.

1. CVS in fact does the rebase when you "cvs update" with local
   modifications, so functionally 'git pull --rebase' is closer to
   original CVS "cvs update" than 'git pull --rebase=false' (i.e.,
   merge).

2. When there is no merge conflicts, everything just works in both cases
   without user intervention.
   
3. Merge conflicts, if any, as well as their resolution, are very
   similar in both workflows. The only difference is that one needs to
   learn to use "git rebase --continue" instead of "git commit" after
   conflicts are resolved.

4. Setting "pull.rebase" configuration value to 'preserve' or 'true'
   hides pull invocation differences (minor convenience).

>From within emacs, magit helps a lot (with any workflow).

-- 
Sergey.