7 ms·

What the hell, speaking against git makes you a hipster now? I was called a hipster for proposing git over CSV and SVC.

by tetha 9y ago

adamcw 9y ago
As I'm not familiar with those, I have to ask: did you mean CVS and SVN?
- tetha 9y ago
  Ack. I'm damn sorry, I just had a fully botched prod-update from hell and I'm on tilt. Yes. CVS and SVN. The old and ugly ones.
  - adamcw 9y ago
    Hahah. Nothing to be sorry for, I was just curious. There are enough source systems out there, I wouldn't be surprised if they were a few I hadn't heard of.
  - hermitdev 9y ago
    You want old, ugly, slow, pain-in-the-ass and proprietary,? Try ClearCase. Expensive. Drain on productivity (all commits were individual file based, meaning it was extraordinarily easy to miss a change; also had no concept of an ignore, so really easy to miss adding a new file). Also, very. fucking. slow. A moderately sized project (or VOB in clearcase terminology) could take an hour to update. I've probably lost a year of my life waiting for clearcase to complete. Also, it had a habit of just royally fucking up even trivial merges (dropping braces in C++ code, for example, or ignoring whitespace changes in python code for another).
    - lokedhs 9y ago
      I've never used Clearcase, but I worked for Sun around 2000 and one of the things I did was analysing kernel dumps of Solaris. If we saw the Clearcase kernel module you can be sure that that was going to be the root cause of the crash. That thing seemed to really terrible, and it wouldn't surprise me if the rest of the product was as bad. I don't know if things have changed now, but to use Clearcase you needed a kernel module that provided a special filesystem that you did your work against.
      - andrewflnr 9y ago
        > to use Clearcase you needed a kernel module that provided a special filesystem that you did your work against. That... Augh, that's actually kind of a good idea, even if it was before its time. But FFS...
        lokedhs 9y ago
        The idea is not terrible, but when the kernel module is so unstable it brings down the build machines with a kernel panic, I'd say the execution was somewhat lacking.
        trentnelson 9y ago
        Similar concept to GVFS: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/devops/2017/02/03/announcing-gvfs-git-virtual-file-system/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/devops/2017/02/03/announcin...
  - gumby 9y ago
    > CVS and SVN. The old and ugly ones. In their respective times they were a big improvement. I believe CVS was the first client/server revision control system (why that feature was added was a horror story)
    - ams6110 9y ago
      Never had a problem with SVN personally either. OpenBSD still uses CVS, for an entire operating system. Which version control you use matters a lot less than having a sane development process.
    - stevekemp 9y ago
      Very much so. I remember jumping from RCS to CVS and it was a very positive change. (RCS only worked on single files, moving to CVS allowed you to maintain a tree. Before RCS I was using SCCS!)
  - dunham 9y ago
    See also RCS - the revision control system you discover when you mistype vi. (This frequently happened to people at school back in the SunOS/Solaris days.)
notyourwork 9y ago
10 years ago?
- tetha 9y ago
  More like 5 - 6 years ago. So, not recent. But version control is one of the few infrastructural components that's allowed to have decades of churn, in my book. Software lives that long.
- JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
  I worked at a pretty well regarded and reputable organisation that still used SVN. (Pretty sure they still do). If not for my yammering there wouldn't be any git in use by any team there. (Only a year ago) All the code progressed fine. git would still have improved it but nobody had bothered to switch yet.
  - mb_72 9y ago
    As a mostly solo developer I haven't found a need to switch away from SVN to git or anything else; doing so would involve work I can't bill for and for no benefit to myself or existing clients. Some things in software and life in general are Fine Just As They Are.
    - dragonshed 9y ago
      I also did this until the day came when I wanted to branch and someone showed me how easy it was in git. I still use SVN from time to time with my old repos, but if given an opening, I migrate it to git without hesitation.
      - sjellis 9y ago
        "I also did this until the day came when I wanted to branch and someone showed me how easy it was in git." Git is an incredibly powerful tool for managing a set of files over time, but if you just use the handful of basic commands, then I agree that the immediate big win is branching. Personally, I found that moving from Subversion to Git fundamentally changed my work habits (for the better). I was a lone developer at the time, so the collaboration aspect wasn't really important. I noticed that Git made it so easy to create a repository that I put everything into version control: not just application code, but random scripts and notes. The other gain was that I learned to work in small, focused commits, because Git is so fast that commiting often is not a burden. Once I made that change, the commit history became meaningful and useful in a way that that Subversion never was: I could quickly revert code, and look back at individual commits for information.
ben509 9y ago
If you were promoting git back in the days of SVN and are now moving on to something else because git is too popular, just cop to it, you're a hipster. :-P

What the hell, speaking against git makes you a hipster now? I was called a hipster for proposing git over CSV and SVC.

by tetha 9y ago

What the hell, speaking against git makes you a hipster now? I was called a hipster for proposing git over CSV and SVC.

adamcw 9y ago

As I'm not familiar with those, I have to ask: did you mean CVS and SVN?

tetha 9y ago
Ack. I'm damn sorry, I just had a fully botched prod-update from hell and I'm on tilt. Yes. CVS and SVN. The old and ugly ones.
- adamcw 9y ago
  Hahah. Nothing to be sorry for, I was just curious. There are enough source systems out there, I wouldn't be surprised if they were a few I hadn't heard of.
- hermitdev 9y ago
  You want old, ugly, slow, pain-in-the-ass and proprietary,? Try ClearCase. Expensive. Drain on productivity (all commits were individual file based, meaning it was extraordinarily easy to miss a change; also had no concept of an ignore, so really easy to miss adding a new file). Also, very. fucking. slow. A moderately sized project (or VOB in clearcase terminology) could take an hour to update. I've probably lost a year of my life waiting for clearcase to complete. Also, it had a habit of just royally fucking up even trivial merges (dropping braces in C++ code, for example, or ignoring whitespace changes in python code for another).
  - lokedhs 9y ago
    I've never used Clearcase, but I worked for Sun around 2000 and one of the things I did was analysing kernel dumps of Solaris. If we saw the Clearcase kernel module you can be sure that that was going to be the root cause of the crash. That thing seemed to really terrible, and it wouldn't surprise me if the rest of the product was as bad. I don't know if things have changed now, but to use Clearcase you needed a kernel module that provided a special filesystem that you did your work against.
    - andrewflnr 9y ago
      > to use Clearcase you needed a kernel module that provided a special filesystem that you did your work against. That... Augh, that's actually kind of a good idea, even if it was before its time. But FFS...
      - lokedhs 9y ago
        The idea is not terrible, but when the kernel module is so unstable it brings down the build machines with a kernel panic, I'd say the execution was somewhat lacking.
      - trentnelson 9y ago
        Similar concept to GVFS: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/devops/2017/02/03/announcing-gvfs-git-virtual-file-system/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/devops/2017/02/03/announcin...
- gumby 9y ago
  > CVS and SVN. The old and ugly ones. In their respective times they were a big improvement. I believe CVS was the first client/server revision control system (why that feature was added was a horror story)
  - ams6110 9y ago
    Never had a problem with SVN personally either. OpenBSD still uses CVS, for an entire operating system. Which version control you use matters a lot less than having a sane development process.
  - stevekemp 9y ago
    Very much so. I remember jumping from RCS to CVS and it was a very positive change. (RCS only worked on single files, moving to CVS allowed you to maintain a tree. Before RCS I was using SCCS!)
- dunham 9y ago
  See also RCS - the revision control system you discover when you mistype vi. (This frequently happened to people at school back in the SunOS/Solaris days.)

notyourwork 9y ago

10 years ago?

tetha 9y ago
More like 5 - 6 years ago. So, not recent. But version control is one of the few infrastructural components that's allowed to have decades of churn, in my book. Software lives that long.
JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
I worked at a pretty well regarded and reputable organisation that still used SVN. (Pretty sure they still do). If not for my yammering there wouldn't be any git in use by any team there. (Only a year ago) All the code progressed fine. git would still have improved it but nobody had bothered to switch yet.
- mb_72 9y ago
  As a mostly solo developer I haven't found a need to switch away from SVN to git or anything else; doing so would involve work I can't bill for and for no benefit to myself or existing clients. Some things in software and life in general are Fine Just As They Are.
  - dragonshed 9y ago
    I also did this until the day came when I wanted to branch and someone showed me how easy it was in git. I still use SVN from time to time with my old repos, but if given an opening, I migrate it to git without hesitation.
    - sjellis 9y ago
      "I also did this until the day came when I wanted to branch and someone showed me how easy it was in git." Git is an incredibly powerful tool for managing a set of files over time, but if you just use the handful of basic commands, then I agree that the immediate big win is branching. Personally, I found that moving from Subversion to Git fundamentally changed my work habits (for the better). I was a lone developer at the time, so the collaboration aspect wasn't really important. I noticed that Git made it so easy to create a repository that I put everything into version control: not just application code, but random scripts and notes. The other gain was that I learned to work in small, focused commits, because Git is so fast that commiting often is not a burden. Once I made that change, the commit history became meaningful and useful in a way that that Subversion never was: I could quickly revert code, and look back at individual commits for information.

ben509 9y ago

If you were promoting git back in the days of SVN and are now moving on to something else because git is too popular, just cop to it, you're a hipster. :-P