|
nelson posted:
What is this? What is this post? Advocating CVS? Are you mad? Lunatical? Trolltastic? Uninformanic? Have you, are you, what you, CVS, what have you? Did PC do pituitary pregnant? Where was clownburger when misdrop ice cream codes? nelson posted:I've managed to screw something up every VCS I've come in contact with
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2010 12:01
|
|
you may want to go with CVS.
.
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:Actually, i can explain 4 words why having a dev and a master branch is counter-productive: You cannot bisect (sanely)! It seems to work fine for me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
I'd rather traverse a dag than a flattened dag. By the way rotor, this isn't YOSPOS, you're allowed to use capital letters here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
This is just ridiculous, git is perfectly suitable for day-to-day use. Have you noticed all the people using it? It's not hard at all. All you need for basic use is git pull, git push, git checkout <branch>, git add <file>, git commit, and git merge <branch>. And occasionally, git checkout <commit>. You can't get more minimalist in a version control system than that. If you want more advanced use, there's some more  advanced things you could do that make your life easier. People who find this confusing are not qualified to be programmers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
The only SCM better than git is monotone. If somebody could rewrite the backend of monotone I'd be grateful.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Ithaqua posted:It does seem like there's a horrible elitist attitude in the Git community that if you don't like it, it means that you're a stupid lovely idiot who has no business being a professional developer. There's nothing wrong with being elitist. It's not whether you like it, it's that if you find git to be too difficult to use productively, you are indeed a stupid idiot crap-for-brains. That's not some controversial opinion, it's simply true. Even if Mercurial is better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Nobody is saying that git is a manly IT challenge. It's not a challenge. It's not difficult. Edit: For example, I've never met in person or worked with anybody that had any trouble getting up to speed with git. Where are these people? Who are these people? How do you find them and can they even code? shrughes fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
hirvox posted:If I had to re-do that project with Git, I would probably have had each feature development take place in a separate branch, What is really disturbing is that there are people developing software right now that don't use a separate branch for each (non-trivial) feature. Sir_Substance posted:There are lots of developers who like to place themselves on some kind of abstract programming leaderboard. Points are theoretically conferred within this clique by perceived skill and knowledge. The superiority claimed is not in knowing how to use git. Nobody believes that's anything special. Nobody is valuing and 'down with slavery' seemingly isn't valuing having knowledge about git or the present ability and skill to use git. What people here opine, rightfully, is that people who struggle with git's interface or its concepts, and continue to do so weeks and months into working with it, are abject retards. Nobody is saying, "Oh, I'm so much better than these retards." They aren't on the radar, on any sort of abstract programming or practical programming totem pole at all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
So you feel shocked, then get a cheat-sheet, and use it. What's so hard about that?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Or you just don't review what you're about to commit, because you made the changes and remember them. And it's not like you face some horrible endgame if your commit is slightly more than minimal. Edit: Normally if I want to review changes I just use git diff. Also: Everybody please git config --global merge.conflictstyle diff3
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
git's arcane command syntax claims its first victim.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
At least use cp -pR. Jesus.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Yawn. I don't really "get" the index or use it at all. git works fine for me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
I don't have any trouble or annoyance with textual merge conflicts. The "tools" just get in the way. But. Please: git config --global merge.conflictstyle diff3 I don't know how many times I've had coworkers cry that merges are hard, only to go over and see that you can't even tell by looking what changes have been made.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 05:36 |
|
|
What I don't get is how people don't manage to have a fine-grained history comprised of logical checkpoints. Sometimes you need to make a big change, but, usually?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 12:27
|
|