11 ms·

> but I've never had something as multiheaded as the linux repo. Git is overkill for so many projects, I hate being forced into for everything.

growlist 7y ago
Definitely. I find SVN so much easier. But we must all use Git because cargo cultism is cool, or something.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- majewsky 7y ago
  We use Git because GitHub happened to be the first non-shitty code repository website.
  - growlist 7y ago
    I'm talking about internal repos.
    - soraminazuki 7y ago
      I know people like to complain about git's interface, but is it so lacking to the point that it justifies the time spent on learning multiple version control systems?
      - compiler-guy 7y ago
        Yes.
        catalogia 7y ago
        Go easy on yourself and stop forcing yourself to use the CLI tools if you dislike them so much. For every editor and IDE under the sun, there exists extensions for these version control systems that provide you with a nicer interface than the CLI interface of any VCS. For years probably 99% of my interactions with git, or any other VCS, is through editor extensions like magit or fugitive.
- adrianN 7y ago
  How do you work on more than one thing at once with svn without manually managing patch files?
  - taco_emoji 7y ago
    Branches.
    - tasuki 7y ago
      Branches in SVN are such a pain! If I recall correctly, creating a branch in SVN consists of making a full copy of everything (remotely, usually). In Git, creating a new branch consists of creating a new pointer to an existing commit.
      - _ph_ 7y ago
        Yes, branches look like full copies, but they are sparse copies. So only any changed data on the branch gets actually stored in the repository.
      - taco_emoji 7y ago
        That's basically all it is in SVN as well... And of course it's remote, every action in SVN is remote since it's centralized (except for shelving).
holtalanm 7y ago
care to elaborate? I fail to see how git would be considered 'overkill' for a project.
- bildung 7y ago
  Other version control software has way simpler syntax and workflow. Subversion for example. The complexity of git makes total sense if you indeed have a complex, multi-HEADed project like the Linux kernel. But most software isn't Linux.
  - Scarblac 7y ago
    Subversion needs a server, for one. For a single user and a single file, Git is already less overhead.
    - taco_emoji 7y ago
      It doesn't, actually, you can host a repo on the filesystem without any sort of server process. http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.7/svn.ref.svnadmin.c.create.html http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.7/svn.ref.svnadmin.c.create...
  - vultour 7y ago
    You literally need to know two commands to work with git in a simple project; add and commit. I don’t see how that is any complicated?
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      By that argument, you literally need to know a single command to work with Mercurial (hg commit) or SVN (svn commit), or hell, even CVS (cvs commit).
      - drunken-serval 7y ago
        git commit -a then.
jbob2000 7y ago
How is git overkill? Perhaps you're conflating Git and Github? Or perhaps you're confusing git best practices or methodologies with git functionality? Git costs nothing to use, you add it to a project and then it sits there until you do something with it. If you want to use it as a "super save" function, it'll do that. If you want to use it to track every change to every line of code you've written, it'll do that too.
kungito 7y ago
Git is the simplest, low friction, low cost, low everything above file storage. How can there be something simpler atop an existing file system (I know there are some versioning file systems but I've never used them). I use git for practically anything I do. I to git init and I have my project versioned and I can but don't have to even add messages to each of my versions. You don't have to use anything else if you don't want to but you have so many options if you need them. You don't have to even use git on line if you don't want but if you do there are multiple (even open source) git repositories with free private repos. What is there not to like?
- bildung 7y ago
  > I know there are some versioning file systems but I've never used them But those other systems were the whole point of the post you replied to ;)
- jcranmer 7y ago
  > How can there be something simpler atop an existing file system Mercurial? Similar DVCS concepts, but you no longer have to worry about garbage collection or staging areas...
  - kungito 7y ago
    What garbage collection? Isn't staging area actually a feature? I've never used anything else since when I started needing something like 5 years ago git was already a recommended choice, but I also never felt like I needed anything else.
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      If your commits are not referenced by a branch or tag, then those are eventually committed. Having to have a branch to keep the commit around means you need to come up with a name for it if you ever want more than one name. When I go back to Mercurial, it's actually quite relieving to not have to come up with a short name to describe what the current work branch is doing, only commit messages. And no staging area is strictly simpler than having a staging area, which is contrary to your assertion.
leshow 7y ago
It has such minimal overhead I don't know how you could say that.
bcrosby95 7y ago
Sure. But you know what is more complex than git? Git + <anything else>. If you use git at all, you may as well use it for everything. If you have control over which version control system to use, there's no good reason to actively use multiple ones at the same time.
andyjohnson0 7y ago
I agree. I have reasonable familiarity with git but I find that traditional SVN-type systems often (not always) have a lower cognitive overhead. If I ever need to manage the codebase for a huge, multi-level project involving large numbers of geographically dispersed developers then I'm sure I'd use git. For simpler projects, not so likely.
ivalm 7y ago
I use git at work where branching matters, I also use git for home projects where git add/commit/push/pull are the only commands I use. Git is efficient at both scales, it is opposite of overkill.
- baot 7y ago
  Furthermore, if you're forced to use it, it's because you need it to interact with others' versions of the repo, in which case branching matters.

growlist 7y ago

Definitely. I find SVN so much easier. But we must all use Git because cargo cultism is cool, or something.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
majewsky 7y ago
We use Git because GitHub happened to be the first non-shitty code repository website.
- growlist 7y ago
  I'm talking about internal repos.
  - soraminazuki 7y ago
    I know people like to complain about git's interface, but is it so lacking to the point that it justifies the time spent on learning multiple version control systems?
    - compiler-guy 7y ago
      Yes.
      - catalogia 7y ago
        Go easy on yourself and stop forcing yourself to use the CLI tools if you dislike them so much. For every editor and IDE under the sun, there exists extensions for these version control systems that provide you with a nicer interface than the CLI interface of any VCS. For years probably 99% of my interactions with git, or any other VCS, is through editor extensions like magit or fugitive.
adrianN 7y ago
How do you work on more than one thing at once with svn without manually managing patch files?
- taco_emoji 7y ago
  Branches.
  - tasuki 7y ago
    Branches in SVN are such a pain! If I recall correctly, creating a branch in SVN consists of making a full copy of everything (remotely, usually). In Git, creating a new branch consists of creating a new pointer to an existing commit.
    - _ph_ 7y ago
      Yes, branches look like full copies, but they are sparse copies. So only any changed data on the branch gets actually stored in the repository.
    - taco_emoji 7y ago
      That's basically all it is in SVN as well... And of course it's remote, every action in SVN is remote since it's centralized (except for shelving).

holtalanm 7y ago

care to elaborate? I fail to see how git would be considered 'overkill' for a project.

bildung 7y ago
Other version control software has way simpler syntax and workflow. Subversion for example. The complexity of git makes total sense if you indeed have a complex, multi-HEADed project like the Linux kernel. But most software isn't Linux.
- Scarblac 7y ago
  Subversion needs a server, for one. For a single user and a single file, Git is already less overhead.
  - taco_emoji 7y ago
    It doesn't, actually, you can host a repo on the filesystem without any sort of server process. http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.7/svn.ref.svnadmin.c.create.html http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.7/svn.ref.svnadmin.c.create...
- vultour 7y ago
  You literally need to know two commands to work with git in a simple project; add and commit. I don’t see how that is any complicated?
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    By that argument, you literally need to know a single command to work with Mercurial (hg commit) or SVN (svn commit), or hell, even CVS (cvs commit).
    - drunken-serval 7y ago
      git commit -a then.

jbob2000 7y ago

How is git overkill? Perhaps you're conflating Git and Github? Or perhaps you're confusing git best practices or methodologies with git functionality? Git costs nothing to use, you add it to a project and then it sits there until you do something with it. If you want to use it as a "super save" function, it'll do that. If you want to use it to track every change to every line of code you've written, it'll do that too.

kungito 7y ago

Git is the simplest, low friction, low cost, low everything above file storage. How can there be something simpler atop an existing file system (I know there are some versioning file systems but I've never used them). I use git for practically anything I do. I to git init and I have my project versioned and I can but don't have to even add messages to each of my versions. You don't have to use anything else if you don't want to but you have so many options if you need them. You don't have to even use git on line if you don't want but if you do there are multiple (even open source) git repositories with free private repos. What is there not to like?

bildung 7y ago
> I know there are some versioning file systems but I've never used them But those other systems were the whole point of the post you replied to ;)
jcranmer 7y ago
> How can there be something simpler atop an existing file system Mercurial? Similar DVCS concepts, but you no longer have to worry about garbage collection or staging areas...
- kungito 7y ago
  What garbage collection? Isn't staging area actually a feature? I've never used anything else since when I started needing something like 5 years ago git was already a recommended choice, but I also never felt like I needed anything else.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    If your commits are not referenced by a branch or tag, then those are eventually committed. Having to have a branch to keep the commit around means you need to come up with a name for it if you ever want more than one name. When I go back to Mercurial, it's actually quite relieving to not have to come up with a short name to describe what the current work branch is doing, only commit messages. And no staging area is strictly simpler than having a staging area, which is contrary to your assertion.

leshow 7y ago

It has such minimal overhead I don't know how you could say that.

bcrosby95 7y ago

Sure. But you know what is more complex than git? Git + <anything else>. If you use git at all, you may as well use it for everything. If you have control over which version control system to use, there's no good reason to actively use multiple ones at the same time.

andyjohnson0 7y ago

I agree. I have reasonable familiarity with git but I find that traditional SVN-type systems often (not always) have a lower cognitive overhead. If I ever need to manage the codebase for a huge, multi-level project involving large numbers of geographically dispersed developers then I'm sure I'd use git. For simpler projects, not so likely.

ivalm 7y ago

I use git at work where branching matters, I also use git for home projects where git add/commit/push/pull are the only commands I use. Git is efficient at both scales, it is opposite of overkill.

baot 7y ago
Furthermore, if you're forced to use it, it's because you need it to interact with others' versions of the repo, in which case branching matters.