Re: A simple git workflow for the rest of us

[Steinar Bang]

>>>>> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden>:

> A long, complicated git command isn't better than one simple git
> command and then a "mv".

I like to copy-paste ready-to-use commands from HOWTOs.  

And the fewer copy-pastes I have to do, the better: less work, less that
can go wrong.

The length, and complicated-ness of the copy-pasted command line doesn't
really matter (as long as it works...).

Note: I think the document is a great idea. I really like HOWTOs with
canned commands that can be copy-pasted and will do the right thing,
without me having to think too much.

>> For the purposes of a robust list of copy-paste commands, using just
>> what's in git itself is better than using a script that may, or may
>> not, be present.

> And is that command as good as what new-workdir does?

My guess is that the git clone command would be better, ie. a 4-6 old
contributed script vs. something that is standard functionality of
git-clone.

My understanding is that they currently pretty much will do the same
thing (symlink the individual files of the .git directory of the
original), but the git built-in functionality will move away from the
reliance on symlinks i the future.