On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt <
ulrich.eckha...@dominolaser.com> wrote:
> I'd generally update regularly, more than once a day even. However, when
> I'm in the middle of working on something, I don't want other people's
> changes to come in, so I defer updating. Before committi
Am 20.02.2012 03:07, schrieb John Leonard:
So one strategy would be, say, to perform an update at the beginning of
a workday at each workstation and then commit at the end of work?
I'd generally update regularly, more than once a day even. However, when
I'm in the middle of working on somethin
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 8:07 PM, John Leonard wrote:
> first, commit each one then update each one?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, normally these events are not strictly synchronized. Commit when
>> you
>> are sure a set of changes are in a state you want to save, and update when
>> you are ready to pick up
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:12:31 -0500, Les Mikesell
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:34 PM, John Leonard
wrote:
What is a good way to keep multiple checkouts up to date? Would it be to
first, commit each one then update each one?
Yes, normally these events are not strictly synchronized.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:34 PM, John Leonard wrote:
> What is a good way to keep multiple checkouts up to date? Would it be to
> first, commit each one then update each one?
>
>
Yes, normally these events are not strictly synchronized. Commit when you
are sure a set of changes are in a state y
What is a good way to keep multiple checkouts up to date? Would it be to
first, commit each one then update each one?
John L.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
