On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:49 PM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 8:17 PM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Eric Firing <efir...@hawaii.edu> > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > Important note: if there are any uncommitted changes when you run git > >> > checkout, Git will behave very strangely. The strangeness is > predictable > >> > and sometimes useful, but it is best to avoid it. All you need to do, > of > >> > course, is commit all the new changes before checking out the new > head. > >> > >> If by strange and confused, the OP means refuse to change branch, then > >> yes. Otherwise, I have no idea what he is talking about. Maybe an old > >> git version - he does not say which one he is using. > >> > >> Also, it is said in the introduction that the OP was using git but did > >> not understand what was happening under the hood. So his conclusion is > >> you have to understand git internals to understand git internals ? > >> Sounds tautological to me. > > > > I think he meant that it is easier to correctly use the knobs and levers > of > > git if you understand what they relate to the repository, and that means > > knowing how the depository tracks things. I found his exposition helpful. > > Yes, his exposition is well written otherwise - much better than what > you find on more "google visible" git expositions (I happen to think > that git is badly "marketed" by some vocal people). But does this > really look harder than hg ? I can't see a big difference. You need to > know about heads, branches, parents and the likes in any DVCS if you > use branches, no ? > I think hg works in a similar manner to git. At least Linus said so in that old google talk ;) But hg doesn't/didn't have the same superstructure built on top of the basic repository idea. However, I'm not familiar with the hg internals... > And the ton of my previous answer was not appropriate anyway, I apologize. > Heh. And on good Friday too ;) Chuck
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
