there is very good git documentation out there.
Someone needs to assume that some people here don't want to work
full-time with git, and learn all its tiny details just to get
anything done. I'm aware of the various tutorials and cheat-sheets out
there, but there's just nothing that sketches every path between two
points. And gods help you if you want to revert some kind of complex
multi-branch merge. I always just git clone the revision I need into a
scratch folder, then copy all the source over. Sheesh...
what are you doing to improve the situation?
what documentation, specifically? git-scm.com has good links and
progit is quite comprehensive. are there points that can be improved?
helpful criticism helps to improve the situation instead of
complaining into the abyss.
please help the community help you.
$ git checkout origin/master <file>
and you are welcome,
probably because talking about 'checkout' is boring?
I guess that you'd find out about git checkout in the same way that you
found out about svn update...
In git, there are local and remote branches. A local branch is created by doing something like `git branch` or `git checkout -b`. You can checkout local branches.
Suppose you know that a file on origin/master has been updated, and you want to update only that file in your checkout.
"git fetch" updates your local database, but the "local database" is
not the same as in svn or cvs. In git you have a local and a remote
database and neither the local nor remote database does/needs not
contain any files you work on (the remote database is mostly a "bare"
database) - you have to checkout from that local database first to
access your files.
Quit repeating this bullshit already.
The fact you're stupid or lazy has nothing to do with Git
documentation. And books on it. I bet you did not bother to read about
the concepts before blindly bashing Git with your Subversion-molded
forehead. That's not how normal developers approach their new tools.
> @Konstantin: please don't be so harsh - people feel better if they let
> of steam.
Well, while I felt acute dislike about that first spit in the face of
Git developers that started the thread, I decided not to flame back.
After all, if a person feels like exposing their own silliness, let
them do that. But the second spit with the same wording was over the
top in my eyes, so I felt someone should cut that crap.
> Sometimes they need a kick in the right direction :)
Others kindly provided the necessary kicks in this case, so my mail
addressed just one particular issue with the thread starter.
> as you already gave me very often :) thx for that!
I appreciate this, thanks.