|
Well, they want back to the first feature of source control : backup !
I definitely need to write that article about it...
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Entropy isn't what it used to.
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what you are stating but just to be clear - source control is not a back up system.
|
|
|
|
|
Hear hear!
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Preach it brother and all the rest who have posted!
I've had something happen with "that thing" that none of the "experts"/acolytes where I work could explain why it happened.
In our repository there are many directories. I was working on some files in directory A(name changed for its protection and simplicity). One of my coworkers was working on files in directory H. For the record, I didn't even know about directory H. Our files were completely disjoint. I go to commit my files by creating the commit, marking which files I want to commit, entering the commit label, etc. While doing this I see I am behind by one commit so I dutifully do the Pull. The coworker's files come down to directory H. Git then creates, on its own mind you, a second Push commit for me to merge the files I just pulled, the ones from directory H which I knew nothing about until the pull, back into the repository.
I saw this one other time but the behavior seems to be random. Yes, I have contacted GitHub and they are looking at it.
|
|
|
|
|
I never got into Git because the name is so stupid.
I'm tired of stupid names for technology.
I'm relieved that it sucks - now I can allow my curiosity die and think of it no more.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: I never got into Git because the name is so stupid.
... says MehGerbil...
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Entropy isn't what it used to.
|
|
|
|
|
*moves Rage over to the 'not nice' column*
|
|
|
|
|
Never tried it. No plans to try it. Using TFS at work and at least it's a step up from Subversion.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Er, no.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot agree with that. I've been using TFS for the past 6 mths, and while I found it to be great Application Development Lifecycle tool, when it comes to the source control, SVN is far superior IMHO.
Initially I thought it is just a matter of getting used to the tool and I should give it a chance. After months of experience, I still reckon that common things like branching, merging, blaming, comparing revisions (changesets) or even committing is simpler and more intuitive in SVN.
|
|
|
|
|
Powerful tool. With power comes responsibility.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Entropy isn't what it used to.
|
|
|
|
|
I could say the same thing about a pneumatic drill, but it doesn't mean I want to use one!
|
|
|
|
|
No, but if you do, you'd better understand how it works...
Decentralised configuration management systems are not trivial (centralised neither, but state-of-the-art now). Plus if you do not need the decentralized way, you may use it as a plain normal centralized version as well.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Entropy isn't what it used to.
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: Decentralised configuration management systems...
Presumably that was a misstatement.
Rage wrote: Plus if you do not need the decentralized way, you may use it as a plain normal centralized version as well.
Doesn't alter the fact that is missing a primary feature for anything above a small company - that of management of multiple products where there are non-trivial code dependencies between them.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Presumably that was a misstatement.
How that ? No, dfinitely Distributed/Decentralised Configuration Management System.
jschell wrote: here there are non-trivial code dependencies between them
Define "non trivial" ? DCMS can do everything what a normal CMS can do, so either what you are trying to achieve is not feasible with centralised configuration management, or your code structure was not made up properly.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Entropy isn't what it used to.
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: No, dfinitely Distributed/Decentralised Configuration Management System.
Because that isn't what Git is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configuration_management#Overview[^]
Rage wrote: Define "non trivial" ? DCMS can do everything what a normal CMS...
If we are talking about Git then it does not have a mechanism for dealing with independent deliverables which share code (not other deliverables) because each repository is optimized for dealing with a single deliverable. This works well for open source internet projects. It doesn't work for a company with different product lines because the end up kludging solutions either with multiple repositories or a single repository.
Other source control systems do.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Because that isn't what Git is
Source control is one part of configuration management. To be precise, since this is what you are after, let's call it a distributed version control system instead of configuration management system, even if one can argue a version control system in software development can handle about everything required by configuration management.
jschell wrote: If we are talking about Git then it does not have a mechanism for dealing with independent deliverables which share code
Still do not understand what Git cannot do. How would you do that with Subversions ? Or ClearCase ? or SourceSafe ? or Vault ?
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Entropy isn't what it used to.
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: Source control is one part of configuration management
Yes - so git is one part of configuration management.
Rage wrote: Still do not understand what Git cannot do. How would you do that with Subversions
I can manage (check out, version, etc) only one directory under a tree of directories in Subversion.
Git requires multiple repositories for the same ability.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure. Let's drive a Panzer VI instead of a car. More power, more responsibility. Heil Git.
|
|
|
|
|
But can it get from Berlin to Warsaw on one tank of fuel?
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Allow me to bring my modest contribution.
(CEF build excerpt)
$ git svn find-rev r251746
_
Oh, I forgot to say: this was started 2 hours ago. Thanks, I have my Ctrl/C.
|
|
|
|
|
Most useful post I've read today. I was under the impression that GIT cured all source control ills, and I was some sort of luddite for not knowing anything about it.
Now I know everyone despises it I will let it bother me no more.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Chalk up one for not despising it here.
I've been using it for the past few months and there's definitely a fairly steep learning curve if you've never used a DVCS before.
It certainly has some quirks and annoyances, but as I get used to things I see the benefits. I think the key is finding a workflow that works for what you're doing.
I generally use SourceTree as a GUI, which is pretty good, and fall back to the command line when doing some things that aren't supported (interactive rebase being the primary one)
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I have little issue with Git.
But I just knew that someone would come along and tell everybody the difficulty was their own fault.
How nauseatingly immature that is, and how self-destructive. Trying to defend, blindly, a piece of software against a chorus of criticism, developer criticism at that, shows total disregard for the end user and I for one would never show any interest in adopting products created by people like that.
Did I already mention I have no problem with Git?
|
|
|
|
|
We are moving to Git where I work and this thread is not giving me any warm fuzzies.
|
|
|
|