4 ms·
I think this is fundamentally missing the point of Git, which is to fill this role (which might require modifying user habits to prevent data loss as described
by matthberg 9y ago
I think this is fundamentally missing the point of Git, which is to fill this role (which might require modifying user habits to prevent data loss as described here).
- warpedjupiter 9y agoI see your point and agree that this isn't necessarily a problem for developers that commit and push code really frequently (as we all know we should). From my experience, though, it isn't uncommon for developers to keep code in their working tree, on their local machine for days or longer before pushing it to a remote repo. I've seen multiple people lose a significant amount of work because they fall victim to the idea that "it won't happen to me", and I've typically seen their diligence with committing/pushing improve temporarily until the memory of their disaster fades. If you can successfully change habits to use Git more effectively to reduce this risk, then I think that is certainly a good alternative. I wonder if an inexpensive insurance policy wouldn't be better for many, though, especially since it could backup the working directory far more frequently than even the most careful Git users. Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate the response!