git show branch:path/to/file > /tmp/file
So never delete branches. You'll know if they're "done" if they've been merged into your master branch.
Did you miss the part where I said I'd like to not involve the VCS tool? Without using git, how do I see two different branches' versions of files?
So never delete branches. You'll know if they're "done" if they've been merged into your master branch.
But nobody else will. What everybody and their brother has told me to do is delete the branch and invent an ad-hoc naming scheme to tag the merge commits. Which is... um, no, that's not the same as being able to close a branch.
You could clone the branches to different paths, I guess.
But nobody else will [know that a branch is "done".]
If you've instructed the team to care about merged status, they will. And there's nothing semantically strange about it either.
I get it, git isn't for you. I concede.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/255202/how-do-i-view-git-...
It requires me to use git-diff. How do I do it without involving the VCS tool? How do I get both files side-by-side in Emacs so I can go through them thoroughly (some of us prefer that to reading diffs, you know)?
Since you can reconstruct deleted branches, I don't see the problem with deleting them.
I want the history of my codebase to be easy to get a feel for; that means major work (e.g., a long-lived branch which made significant changes) should be easily accessible. Telling people to hunt down the right merge commit and work back through its ancestry doesn't do that. Inventing ad-hoc schemes of tags or renamed branches to try to make up for the inability to keep a branch but say you're done with it doesn't do that.
It reminded me of why I like git so much.
Meanwhile, it's (one reason) why I don't like git so much.