NetBSD-Users archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: cvs better than git?
On 2020-06-21 10:57, Andreas Krey wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 00:03:54 +0000, Johnny Billquist wrote:
...
Except when git refuses to do that, which I have had happen to me
several times. git stash refuses (I can't even remember the error
message right now, but something weird).
I can't think of any nonobvious (like being in a conflicted merge
already, or in a rebase) reasons why it should fail, but I might
have internalized those cases so well that I subconsciously avoid them.
Yeah. I suspect you either consciously or subconsciously avoids a whole
bunch of things that can lead git into broken state. So then it's easy
for you to say that you have never seen that, and cannot understand the
problem.
And of course it's not something easy, non-obvious. If it were, then it
would be easily fixed, which it has not been.
Next time I get there, I'll save the output from the commands, and try
to remember sharing them with you, just for the amusement... Right
before I go and wipe git yet again.
And every time I manage to get there it has been extremely frustrating,
because I know exactly what I want to do, and it is some extremely
simple operations, and yet I waste a day or two on git instead of just
getting work done. For me a clear sign that the tool is wrong.
Which of course also leads on
to the git pull refusing to work, and no matter how you fight it, it
seems to have been impossible to resolve.
Which is one of the scenarios I mention I've been in where in the end,
even the "experts" gave up and just told me to wipe and start over.
Perhaps let an actual expert look on them. (Yes, I know, they tend
to not be available at that point in time, and few people are interested
in later reproducing the situation.)
I have obviously no desire at all to reproduce the situation, as I have
better things to waste my paid time on. But when it has happened, the
people who have tried looking at it have definitely many years of
experience with git in all kind of ways, and are true git believers.
Which obviously did not help.
Don't you love typing in those long hashes to refer to specific versions?
Non sequitur to the previous paragraph. Unless you're actually on a
glass tty it's usually copy&paste, and even that I don't need often.
Definitely a non sequitur to the above. But you drifted on to how you
only use the command line, which just reminded me of another thing with
git I really dislike, especially on the command line. That thing was
obviously not meant for people to use on the command line. You do not
have 20 character long hashes as arguments to something on a command
line interface.
Yes, cut and paste becomes absolutely required. Which should tell you
that command line is really bad.
Basically, it seems like everyone is sooner or later giving up on
command line, and start using some graphical tool to try to make sense
of the git repository...
Not me. The only gui tool I tried and kept using is 'gitk', mainly
because it allows to see the current state of the commit graph
much better than anything text-mode.
Me: Everyone ends up using some gui tool to make sense of things.
You: Not me. I only use one gui tool.
So in which way is that "not using a gui tool"?
And of course you want code reviews and the like before something gets
committed to the central repository.
'...gets merged into a blessed branch', more likely. The point being
probably that 'commit' and 'to somewhere' are different things in
DVCS. The distinction between 'patchset to review' and 'commits to
make' blurs.
Call it what you want. In the end, you still have a master somewhere.
Which is the absolute truth of the work. And everyone else needs to sync
with that. And anything going in there needs to be checked before accepted.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt%softjar.se@localhost || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Old Index