D'Arcy Cain <darcy%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > Here is exactly what I did. > > 1. git clone darcy%wip.pkgsrc.org@localhost:/pkgsrc-wip.git wip > 2. cd wip > 3. vi Makefile [remove pkgin] > 4. git rm -r pkgin > 5. git commit git has a concept of staged and unstaged changes. While this is more complicated than not having it, it's also useful. In this case, you changed Makefile and did not stage that change. By doing "git add Makefile", it would be staged, meaning ready to be part of the commit. Commands to see what is going on are: git status and git diff # unstaged changes git diff --staged # staged changes > When I ran that last command there were no changes except the ones > that I wanted to commit. So do I still have to do some git > push/pull/stash/abra-cadabra command before the commit? I can't even No, you can commit staged changes regardless of being in sync with upstream. > do a pull because I have those changes that I am trying to commit. > Doing any of those other commands being suggested just sends me on a > circular path. > > I still think that we need to move away from CVS but I think that I > just moved back into the Subversion camp. The big points, which won't convince you, are that 1) with git, people without permission to change the main repo can fully prepare proposed changes and 2) these days, everyone in the Free Software world basically has to be able to use git.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature