The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
Git and SVN solve different problems. You should use the one most suited to your current project/needs. SVN is a centralized whereas Git is a distributed. With SVN, you have a local working copy and with Git you have a local repository. It is for this reason it may seem that Git is overly complex. If you want to fork a repo and add features that will be different from the projects original goals then Git might just work best for you. If you want a group of individuals contributing to a common code base then SVN will be your best bet.
I strongly disagree with you guys.
I have working with Git and SVN for quite a while - in different environments and at different companies, and I prefer Git to SVN.
At the end of the day - I found that Git is much stronger and you are able to do so much more with it that thing SVN. Yes sure to get to all the nice interesting stuff it takes some understanding - but if you think about it development is the same. If you think you will become a developer with only a bit of understanding of general concepts you are wrong. <-- this is especially to all the Graphic Designer who this that they are developers thanks to WordPress and Drupal
Git is not all that complex and the features (pros) out way the learning curve (cons) I would say.
I am not saying that there is something wrong with SVN or that Git is better - it different and its all dependent on what you want to do, and how much you are willing to learn.
The problem with Git is that Linus has been quoted in saying something along the lines of "Git isn't a tool [solution], it's a framework." This lead me to believe that you should really have a few scripts set up that do the heavy-lifting for you. SVN is a tool, it does what it is designed for and nothing more: by using SVN you subscribe the workflow imposed by the SVN developers and have no versatility, where Git can be jimmied into basically any workflow.
GitHub for Windows also gets rid of a lot of the pain (really, one-click pushing and pulling) - and it isn't only for GitHub repositories[^]. In a similar light, Microsoft have released the GitHub integration for Visual Studio and I assume it will be of the same caliber (read: simplicity) as TFS.
I only drop to the CLI when I really need to these days, and haven't needed to in a couple of months: the Windows tooling is great for it, if you know it's there.
He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask a question remains a fool forever. [Chinese Proverb]
The biggest potential problem with version control is when people don't use it frequently. People won't use frequently what isn't easy to understand and use. For that reason, if for no other, Subversion >> GIT.
If you're working on your own, or within a team where every single member understands how and loves to use GIT, then all the power to you. But if you have only one member in your team that isn't comfortable with it, you're going to have problems, sooner or later.
So I'm not alone - thanks for making me feel better about that!
Overall I find most source control a pain (and worry), when they should make life easier. Maybe it's a lack of trust on my part, but I still do a time stamped batch file backup of the source irrespective of using a source control (not GIT!)
As for GIT, I just find it too complicated - which means it has a low trust rating in my book, if you can't easily understand a system how can you trust it? As one of our engineers said it must have been named after the characteristics of one (or all) of its designers!
it's my understanding that git is meant to manage multiple branches easily, probably that's why is overly complex for simpler tasks like working in a one shared source tree.
Yes, I would agree. I can see where my idea of working with revision control is different. I rarely would branch my SVN tree, and the idea of keeping local a local repository with all of the local branches and changes on my computer (until they are pushed onto the remote repository) I can see as possibly beneficial but overly complex, and frankly, scares me a bit with regards to losing my work due to a disk failure or the complexity of merging my work if I fall too far behind everyone else's branches.
However, having read something recently, I am beginning to change the mental picture I have been holding - namely, that there is also a local repository as well as a remote repository. That helps me understand why a commit doesn't actually get seen on the remote server until a push happens.
It looks like you just do not need it. JIT has just 2 strong points - distributed architecture and conflict resolution. You use "I" and not "we" in the post, so it is unlikely that you can benefit from either. Besides these 2 advantages, GIT still retains its nature of a quick hack. I guess this happens because the focus is still on making things possible as opposed to making them easy or forgiving.
You use "I" and not "we" in the post, so it is unlikely that you can benefit from either.
Well, this IS for a project with a couple other devs on it.
I guess this happens because the focus is still on making things possible as opposed to making them easy or forgiving.
Those are not mutually exclusive. My client is an expert at Git and whenever he explains something, it all makes sense and I "get it", but then when I try to do something at home, it blows up for me. It's a learning curve, and I've read through books and blog posts, but there is still a disconnect between what I do, that I think is doing it right, and what ends up happening. However, my rant was at the fact that I tried to do everything possible to kill my changes and revert back to the remote repository, to absolutely no avail. I ended up deleting the entire folder and re-cloning it. When I read in the documentation that doing a "reset --hard" (or whatever the syntax is) should kill my local changes, and doing a fetch / pull / checkout should get me to the latest version on the remote, and it obviously didn't work because "git status" still returned all the changes I wanted to throw away, then yes, I rapidly come to the conclusion that it's a pile of s***.
In a sense, yes, it is that pile. When I started using GIT I created a 3 repository model of the real project and tried commands there first. We also had few developers, but thanks to the lack of coordination and frequent changes in specs and overall project direction GIT payed for itself. I guess that was what a much larger and better organized team would experience.
From the perspective of someone at the other end of the experience curve, I found Git almost impenetrable - I'm learning French right now (and I'm not a young whipper snapper), Git is harder than an entirely new language as far as I'm concerned.
I would guess that if I broke through that outer shell and was already experienced with VCS concepts then Git would be the best choice - it's an assumption since why else would so many people and companies flock to it? I am guessing that the complexity pays back later when you have lots of contributors, branches etc. and maybe Bazaar, Mercurial etc. aren't so capable at that stage..., I have no idea, but there must be some reason!
However, the most frequent comment I see and which tallies with my own experience, is "If it was my choice I'd use Mercurial".
Mercurial is so much easier to get your head around, hugely helped by TortoiseHg, from total novice to functional in minutes not years.
Wasn't going to do it again cause none of you are playing along anymore(don't blame you it's sh*t). But couldn't resist this Gem.[^]
I mean she honestly believes the School are in the wrong for not feeding her children, when she must knowingly send them to School day after day without a Packed Lunch or money to buy one. The comments are quite amusing particularly as the Mum in question turns up with the handle 'Tegs' but soon disappears when she gets rumbled. The look on the kids faces(obviously told by the snapper to look sad) is priceless too.
Post your local news crap below. The most stupid/mundane/poorly written wins.
Don't be too rough on the police. They did handle the temple shooting a short while back. Of course, the community newspaper neglected to cover it much. The only story related to it was titled "A CommUNITY Meeting[^]", which should by its title alone tell you that it isn't exactly hard-hitting journalism.
Last week (I think) DD was talking about a tax dodge where you buy something for an inflated price to move the money out of the company.
Sounds like a good way to get LARTed if you ever find yourself on the receiving end of an audit.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
but they do have some high-flying goals for the project.
They certainly do. While they are extreme goals it for me it shows where things are (for such tech). I am more of the thought "if $50 gets me that what does a $1000 get?"
While I am not about to go spend $1000 on such a device, I think many of the commercial aspects that people think of others or companies would spend it on.
News/Media - why pay a camera man to follow some Hollywood star or politician when you can tell a robot to follow them and report back footage)
P.I. - Now a P.I. can handle numerous cases with the proper hardware. Obviously along with P.I. are non citizen investigations. Various Police Departments can afford these devices easier then the 100K UAVs.
Individual "defense" - defense is not the correct word, but I am thinking of the poor girl that has some stalker or is just paranoid. With such a simple device she can have it lead the way and ensure no one is lurking in the dark alley etc.
Schooling - Most courses could now end up recorded as the school could fund these to monitor the teacher during lecture and labs
Private Security - Why mount a camera when you can have cameras "patrolling" the area. Could be useful inside or outside. Servicing of the equipment could be easier because the equipment would dock itself when it needs servicing.
Sports - While HD cameras allow for nice overview look as though the camera is right there, such equipment is VERY expensive. With these not only does the high end camera become a moot point but the camera man himself. This setting is repeatable in any high profile broadcast.
The list goes on an on. Again, to me these are the "higher-end" items that are likely to come into play. Not the $50 item. A company would gladly spend $1000 to replace a $100K camera and the camera man that is salaried/contracted.
The other thing that comes into play is the "toy" aspect. Even if the $50 margin is not hit... Even if it is a couple hundred it is still at the cheap level that people will buy it to "play" with it. Enough of these purchases and they become integrated into society. I think about some of the other tech devices. For example the soon to be seen google project glass. While these are revolutionary they have a large price tag on them. Not too many people will buy them to "play" with it and see what it can do. A $50 UAV with cameras though would simply come out of my game purchase (or something like that). I would happily pay it just to play with it.
There is one item that many forget though. The regulation aspect. FAA has strict regulations on aircraft (UAV or manned). I heard recently that with in 10 miles of an airport it is all the way to the ground. That is actually quite a large radius. While the regulation is in place, it will be extremely difficult to actual enforce, leaving the FAA with 2 options. Ask for money or loosen the regulations. Both could have repercussions.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
My primary browser has been IE9 since it's release date and i rarely use other browsers.
Almost 3 months ago, for not using my bandwidth coz of ads. and banners, I disabled Adobe Flash on IE but kept it runnig on Chrome.
Now, today, i realized that i am mostly using Chrome for daily works just because it can show Flash contents.
So, i turned Adobe on agian in IE ...
In my Laptop it runs faster ( in terms of application launch ),has nice search bar, almost has the same page load as Chrome and Firefox, Accelerator button is very handy and overall UI design is better.
Of course it is lagging some features like Save Session and could have a better favoitre menu.