Le 11/04/2012 03:15, Darren New nous fit lire :
> On 4/10/2012 12:05, nemesis wrote:
>> You know git was written as a reverse engineering of the proprietary
>> cvs the
>> Linux kernel project was using at some point, right?
> 
> Are you sure? I thought it was written to replace the reverse
> engineering of the proprietary cvs?
> 
CVS is a version control system (a real one, like rcs and svn).
You should reword "proprietary cvs" as "proprietary SCM"

Git was written to get away from a license issue with BitKeeper.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 10:27 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> You should reword "proprietary cvs" as "proprietary SCM"

Serial Copy Management? No, wait... >_<

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I gather a number of people do use Git, however.

  At least git is much better than another extremely popular versioning
system, namely svn, which is a real PITA.

  Git has this marvelous idea of keeping all of its versioning files in
one single directory in the root of the project. Seems rather self-evident,
one would think.

  Svn, on the other hand, has this completely braindead idea of having a
versioning directory in each single subdirectory of the project. Which
means that it breaks badly if you do *anything* to *any* directory in
your project. Copy a directory from one place to another? Svn breaks.
Rename a directory? Svn breaks. Copy an unversioned directory from
somewhere else onto a versioned directory in your project? Svn breaks.
Copy a directory from one project to another? Svn breaks.

  And "svn breaks" means that it will refuse to commit, update, fix or
do anything to the directory. (Fixing the problem usually involves
either removing the .svn subdirectories manually, or removing the
entire offending directory hierarchy, updating, and then copying the
files inside the directories (rather than entire directory structures)
from one place to another, which can be really annoying if you have
subdirectories inside subdirectories...)

  This can be *extremely* annoying when you have a complex directory
structure that you would want to copy from one place to another. With
git it isn't a problem: Just copy it and that's it. With svn you will
be breaking your project.

  Who thought this would be a good idea?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 10:57 AM, Warp wrote:
>    At least git is much better than another extremely popular versioning
> system, namely svn, which is a real PITA.
>
>    Git has this marvelous idea of keeping all of its versioning files in
> one single directory in the root of the project. Seems rather self-evident,
> one would think.
>
>    Svn, on the other hand, has this completely braindead idea of having a
> versioning directory in each single subdirectory of the project. Which
> means that it breaks badly if you do *anything* to *any* directory in
> your project.
>
>    Who thought this would be a good idea?

That's pretty screwed up, man...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> That's pretty screwed up, man...

  It's not fun trying to fix a coworker's local copy of the project using
skype as a communication interface, when he once again accidentally broke
the versioning system via a very simple file operation (such as copying
the contents of a directory to the project). And he didn't even do anything
stupid; it's usually just a simple and normal file operation you would do
as a matter of course, and in fact I have broken the project several times
in the same way as well. It's svn that's the stupid one.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 11:23 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> That's pretty screwed up, man...
>
>    It's not fun trying to fix a coworker's local copy of the project using
> skype as a communication interface, when he once again accidentally broke
> the versioning system via a very simple file operation (such as copying
> the contents of a directory to the project). And he didn't even do anything
> stupid; it's usually just a simple and normal file operation you would do
> as a matter of course, and in fact I have broken the project several times
> in the same way as well. It's svn that's the stupid one.

Isn't an SCM supposed to /help you/, not constantly get in your way?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/04/2012 01:55 PM, Invisible wrote:

> So anyway, I downloaded the /real/ Git implementation, which comes with
> some visualisation tools. (NetBeans does a really useless job of showing
> you the current state of your repository. It shows you the ID of the
> current commit and that's about it.)

> All of this stuff gets /much/ easier to follow with gitk to show me WTF
> is actually happening.

Question: Who designed gitk to default to using black text on a navy 
blue background? That's frigging *absurd*! Fortunately, you can change 
it - because it's utterly illegible!

Post a reply to this message

Le 11/04/2012 12:25, Invisible nous fit lire :

> Isn't an SCM supposed to /help you/, not constantly get in your way?

Yep, but not all SCM fit all the people.

The same way a hammer is a helpful tool for a carpenter, but in the way
of a gardener. (ok, give me a usage of a hammer for a gardener ?)

The choice of a SCM must be made in perspective of the usage of the work
place. A good choice for a carpenter might be a poor choice for a
gardener, copying your neighbor is not always the best move. (but might
be ok if you're a mason and you're next a carpenter).

As usual, there is no universal best solution (otherwise, it would
dominate the place and you wouldn't have a choice).

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 11:33 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 11/04/2012 12:25, Invisible nous fit lire :
>
>> Isn't an SCM supposed to /help you/, not constantly get in your way?
>
> Yep, but not all SCM fit all the people.

Well, that's true, but a tool that breaks if you do something very 
simple and common strikes me as being a bad tool. At a minimum, it ought 
to provide an easy way to fix the problem...

Post a reply to this message

On 10/04/2012 01:55 PM, Invisible wrote:

> So far, that understanding hasn't caused me too many problems. And I
> quite like the way that a single repository holds multiple branches.
> Darcs follows an "every repository /is/ a branch" mentality. Which
> works, but makes it kinda long-winded to change branches. In NetBeans, I
> can click "switch branch" and all my code suddenly changes.

It also means that you can fairly easily copy a file from one branch to 
another, as I just discovered...

Post a reply to this message