[Tfug] Question the second: Revision control

[Zack Breckenridge]

I use both git and mercurial, but primarily git. And both of these in a
very simple manner (clone, branch, commit, merge, push, repeat). Honestly I
can't speak to the technical merits over SVN or even CVS as well as Nick
just did, but I will say I find it to be faster.

I also find the "commit early, commit often" mantra helps keep me focused
when I'm working (corresponding to what Nick said about being able to
commit without having the code completely perfect yet). It's also a
somewhat measurable form of structed output. DVCS tools, or at least the
culture around them, seem to encourage this.

Zack #2

On Thursday, August 14, 2014, Nick Lopez <nick at glowingmonkey.org> wrote:
>
> On Aug 14, 2014, at 3:20 PM, John Gruenenfelder <jetpackjohn at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> But... these days, on the Net, it seems as if everyone and their brother
has joined the Git parade.  Meanwhile, I've paid it virtually no attention,
under the assumption that what I wanted, exactly, was a *central* system
and not a distributed one.
>
>   And for good reasons: Push,pull,cherry-pick,rebase,bisect,pull-request.
Git is awesome
>
> Maybe that's just a personal choice, as nearly all of the projects have
been just me or a very small group.  Or maybe there are features and
reasons to use Git of which I am unaware?  I don't really know.
>
>   Git pretty much does everything SVN ever did better and faster, though
maybe at the cost of disk space. Once you get used to the DVCS paradigm
it’s very freeing. I feel that an old school centralized VCS causes code
not to be committed until it’s complete and “perfect”. With every checkout
being a fully functional repository you can commit any ‘ol incomplete, hair
brained, change and have that history to revert to or diff against while
you’re refactoring or spawn branches to try different things, then when
it’s “perfect” you push that version up to the share repository, or as ask
whoever you’re collaborating with to pull the changes from your working
repo.
>   I have one repo where I keep a few branches for minor mostly cosmetic
tweaks between instances; with SVN that might result in big messy merges
whenever I had to update one of the special branches, but with Git it’s
just a quick “rebase” and it shoves the changes in the branch off to the
side and syncs up with master branch, then reapplies the branch’s changes.
There’s no conflicts with my changes in the branch conflicting with
anything that was going on in the master branch because the changes don’t
get reapplied until all the other changes from master get merged. All the
branches and their histories then get pushed up to a central GitLab repo
for backups and shared access.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tfug.org/pipermail/tfug_tfug.org/attachments/20140814/0a0eef4b/attachment-0002.html>