|
Git also shipped with a lot of features that Mercurial lacked but gradually made their way in as Mercurial evolved.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
Git also is a bit harder to get working on windows, so you can sort the dev wheat from the dev chaff more easily. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
AFAICT, the real advantage to using git is not that it's vastly superior to Mercurial from a technical/features standpoint, but that GitHub is awesome and a shitton of open source projects use git, so it's got a lot more exposure on the web.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Git also is a bit harder to get working on windows, so you can sort the dev wheat from the dev chaff more easily.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:uh This always comes up and it's always wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
Yeah msysgit is not the same as mercurial in terms of "works well on Windows", sorry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
still don't see what's so hard about running an installer and clicking next a few times
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
I use git on windows, I can open up a git bash shell or use the git gui and it works fine. What's the big fuss all about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
I haven't used the git gui in 6 months, but if nothing's changed I think tortoisehg knocks it out of the park. (P.S. I'm not saying the git gui doesn't work fine.) E: Oh poo poo I just participated in a holy war please ignore this post entirely 
epswing fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Aug 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
epswing posted:I haven't used the git gui in 6 months, but if nothing's changed I think tortoisehg knocks it out of the park. How dare you attack my self-image by suggesting that there's software I use that works better on Windows!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
TortoiseSVN is still 5x-50x slicker than either TortoiseGit or TortoiseHG, so I guess everyone should probably be using SVN if they're developing on Windows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
Smugdog Millionaire posted:TortoiseSVN is still 5x-50x slicker than either TortoiseGit or TortoiseHG, so I guess everyone should probably be using SVN if they're developing on Windows. Have you used TortoiseHg recently? Not attacking you or anything, just curious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 10:59
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Yeah msysgit is not the same as mercurial in terms of "works well on Windows", sorry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 14:01
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:Performance isn't good, but I haven't run into any other problems. Qualify this statement, please. I think you just did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
TortiseHg feels vastly more polished/cleaner/better than the GitExtensions and msysgit. The whole SSH key requirement for github is also a bit weird coming from a windows background. I'd put tortise svn as 2x ahead of tortiseHg these days. Bigger issue I've got with DCVS is that it is very, very hard for the non-developers to grok -- SVN was tricky enough, but through enough cerimonial beatings I actually got it to take. Changing the rules will be difficult.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 14:38
|
|
|
wwb posted:Bigger issue I've got with DCVS is that it is very, very hard for the non-developers to grok I begrudgingly opted for SVN instead of a DVCS because I didn't want to deal with teaching the designers how DVCS works. (They barely get SVN.) I thought about maybe writing a couple shortcut scripts to "commit and push", and "pull and update", but that would almost certainly explode in my face. Can't tell yet if it's going to be worse if (when) SVN explodes in my face. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 14:56
|
|
|
epswing posted:I begrudgingly opted for SVN instead of a DVCS because I didn't want to deal with teaching the designers how DVCS works. (They barely get SVN.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 17:06
|
|
|
So, has anybody here tried both bzr and git and made up his mind about what's better? I'm a git user myself, and have heard good things about bcz. Given that I'm a total whore and have no allegiance to any specific tool, I'll gladly switch over to bzr if the feature set is obviously better. I think the prob is that there's nothing equivalent to GitHub right now, so it's almost unavoidable to stick to git because of it. It's becoming a standard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
Does anyone other than Canonical actually use bzr? I don't think I've ever run into a project that uses it which wasn't on launchpad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:So, has anybody here tried both bzr and git and made up his mind about what's better? I'm a git user myself, and have heard good things about bcz. Given that I'm a total whore and have no allegiance to any specific tool, I'll gladly switch over to bzr if the feature set is obviously better. Oh, and the UI is designed rather than accreted. It can push/pull to pretty much any other VCS (cvs/darcs/git/hg/svn), so you can use it even for people who use GitHub or Bitbucket or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
Janin posted:I use Bazaar for pretty much everything; it's nice because it's in Python, so there's a real API instead of just bashing everything together with thousands of lines of shell scripts. This advantage also applies to Mercurial. There's Dulwich, a "a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols", but I have no idea whether it is any good. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 14:21
|
|
|
Didn't I read about GitHub working on a Python implementation of git, or am I off my rocker? I can't seem to find where I read that now...
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
Dulwich works well enough to be fundamental to hg-git, which itself works reasonably well. hg-git is a GitHub project, and may well have been the driving force behind Dulwich.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Didn't I read about GitHub working on a Python implementation of git, or am I off my rocker? I can't seem to find where I read that now... It sounds like you're thinking of libgit2, which is in C, and therefore better (for the purposes of speed and portability). It has bindings for Python, of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
ISTR something about github's implementation of git being a rewrite from scratch in Erlang or some other functional language.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
that was just the git server daemon, the thing that listens for remote git requests. github abandoned it, but andrew thompson wrote a blog series on optimizing it and got hired by basho as a result.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
lol if you posted:But aside from file syncs and submits what would be generating gigs of file transfers? Are you putting built assets into P4 and using that as a patch distribution system? We put build assets into p4 as a distribution/deployment system, however we took a distributed approach so we're using separate/independent p4 servers in each location. Builds propagate between sites using rsync. With this model, syncs and submits are always done within the same site (fast) and the heavy lifting across WAN is done by rsync (which is more efficient since it often transfers far less than a p4 sync/p4 submit would have to). On an average day we push 150-200 GB of fresh data into each p4 server. Now if only p4 sync could have a delta mechanism like rsync does...
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
wwb posted:Bigger issue I've got with DCVS is that it is very, very hard for the non-developers to grok Tell them to watch this video by Perl guy Schwern: http://blip.tv/open-source-developers-conference/git-for-ages-4-and-up-4460524 He uses baby toys to explain git.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 07:30
|
|
|
Hey thread, I have a request. Could some people who use CruiseControl post a few page sources for the web interface? I'm busy on something that needs to parse the HTML in CC's web interface, and I'd like to find out how much different CC versions are different from eachother. The basic landing page is okay, and the standard overview pages. No need for Dashboard stuff. Oh and don't forget to censor some stuff in case you're embarassed about your horribly broken builds  Tia!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 15:22
|
|
|
Anyone have experience with the lock extension for Mercurial? Does it actually work? Can it be integrated into TortoiseHg?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2011 09:22
|
|
|
I just started using Git and I'm really not sure what I'm doing. Say I edit a file and want to commit the changes, if I type "git commit -m 'comments'" then it tells me that there were no changes to commit and suggests that I do "git add file" first and then commit. This doesn't make sense to me because I already added that file before, and I don't feel like I should have to re-add the file again just because I edited it. Am I missing something here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 12:55
|
|
|
Ziir posted:I just started using Git and I'm really not sure what I'm doing. Say I edit a file and want to commit the changes, if I type "git commit -m 'comments'" then it tells me that there were no changes to commit and suggests that I do "git add file" first and then commit. This doesn't make sense to me because I already added that file before, and I don't feel like I should have to re-add the file again just because I edited it. Watch this thing, it'll clear it up: Git for ages 4 and up
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 13:10
|
|
|
Ziir posted:I just started using Git and I'm really not sure what I'm doing. Say I edit a file and want to commit the changes, if I type "git commit -m 'comments'" then it tells me that there were no changes to commit and suggests that I do "git add file" first and then commit. This doesn't make sense to me because I already added that file before, and I don't feel like I should have to re-add the file again just because I edited it. Better beginner resource is probably Pro Git. Chapters 4 and 8 probably aren't terribly interesting for you, but the rest should be very helpful. If you really want to understand git, be sure you don't skip over chapter 9.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 15:23
|
|
|
Ziir posted:I just started using Git and I'm really not sure what I'm doing. Say I edit a file and want to commit the changes, if I type "git commit -m 'comments'" then it tells me that there were no changes to commit and suggests that I do "git add file" first and then commit. This doesn't make sense to me because I already added that file before, and I don't feel like I should have to re-add the file again just because I edited it. The resources that Mithaldu and ColdPie posted are great; especially the Pro Git book. I recommend that book to everyone who's starting with Git. A direct answer to your question can't hurt either: you do have to add the file again. You always have to add whatever you're going to commit. Every time*. git add adds the current contents of the file (whether or not it's already tracked) to what will be in the next commit. This way, you can build up your next commit file-by-file over multiple commands instead of a long sequence of arguments, e.g. svn commit file1 file2 file3 file4 file5. Note that you can use git add . to add everything under the current directory, both tracked and untracked. *Let's not discuss git commit -a. Getting used to the index is well worth it and helps with the "oops, I committed too much" problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
Honestly, if we're gonna be giving usage advice: Always use `git add -p`! If you're using anything else you are either doing it wrong or an advanced git user.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
Maybe you want to comment/elaborate on what this is and why everyone should be using it, rather than "betterusethiskbye"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
epswing posted:Maybe you want to The only concession i'm willing to make for "What the peasant doesn't know, he doesn't eat."-type people is this: `git add -p` will make you find bugs in your code before they even enter the repo. If that isn't reason enough for anyone to go, look and evaluate on their own, then god help that poor person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
I like git gui more than git add -p.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:I like git gui more than git add -p. You make an excellent point there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
when actually writing code I almost exclusively use -am with a <5 word commit message then before pushing review each commit, squash and split like crazy, and add actual commit messages I've strongly considered trying to figure out a way to just autocommit every time I save a file so that I can completely forget about dicking around with source control while coding
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2011 05:50
|
|