On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Norman Gray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Tim, hello -- how's it going?
>
> On 2012 Feb 16, at 23:21, Tim Jenness wrote:
>
>>> I haven't the faintest clue. This is one reason I like Mercurial.
>>
>> Come on! That's a little unfair. They both have branches. The point is
>> that if you've committed to "master" then the next time you pull your
>> patch will appear from the remote as a different commit because it
>> will have me as committer so gets a different SHA1.
>
> Sorry -- I didn't mean to derail this conversation with git moans (though I think we're about finished in the main business of this thread). However, it being Friday...
>
Not a problem. I'm here to help.
> I'm a reasonably sophisticated branch-happy Mercurial user, but that knowledge has been obtained from a few good web pages, and dipping into the on-line version of the Mercurial book. There's more stuff I don't know, which I haven't needed yet, but which hasn't got in the way.
>
> In contrast, almost every interaction I've had with various git repositories has resulted in bafflement, with me either having to learn a lot more about git's view of the world than seems necessary for a routine operation, or else resort to voodoo ("type this command..."). I think this is a combination of git's underlying model and design, which has always seemed to be over-complicated compared to Mercurial's, and git's documentation.
>
The voodoo is usually from people who have no idea.
>>> Would anyone have any recommendations?
>>
>> I read Pro Git http://progit.org/book/
>
>
> I'm impressed. I got all the way to section 2.4 before thinking the author was an idiot, and haven't been insulted at all yet! I'll work through this one, so much ta for the pointer.
>
I actually wrote this to help people when we moved to git initially:
http://starlink.jach.hawaii.edu/starlink/GitPrimer
--
Tim
|