3 ms·

I don't remember if I've read this before, but I feel the same way. The great thing about git is that it's easy to understand. Once you understand the concepts

by hasenj 16y ago

I don't remember if I've read this before, but I feel the same way. The great thing about git is that it's easy to understand. Once you understand the concepts (and they're really (relatively) simple) and learn the vocabulary, it gives you tremendous power. At least, it makes you feel that you have power, hence it empowers you. > Git is actually the missing link that has prevented me from building the things I've wanted to build in the past. Totally agree with this one.

mberning 16y ago
I'm having a hard time understanding the second point. I have never felt that my VCS prevented me from doing ANYTHING, even when I was forced to use completely shit systems like Visual Source Safe 6.0. Are you saying that you wanted to build systems that integrated very tightly with version control, or that the difficulties you experienced with older version control tools prevented you from being more adventurous in your coding?
- hasenj 16y ago
  It's not the presence of a bad VCS. It's the lack of a decent one. Without git, it's really hard to take bold steps in redesigning the project, because one would be afraid it won't work, and then you'll lose all the progress you had so far. Git solves this problem. Just start a new branch and work in it. If it works, great, merge mack to the master branch. If it fails, no big deal, discard this branch and go back to master. Basically git encourages experimenting in a way no other system does.
  - georgieporgie 16y ago
    Just start a new branch and work in it. If it works, great, merge mack to the master branch. If it fails, no big deal, discard this branch and go back to master. How does that not describe more traditional VCSes like cvs and subversion?
    - eru 16y ago
      Merging used to be harder in them, and forking was a big deal.
      - aerique 16y ago
        Even moving directories was a pain in the ass in CVS.
      - georgieporgie 16y ago
        Having read through this: http://book.git-scm.com/3_basic_branching_and_merging.html http://book.git-scm.com/3_basic_branching_and_merging.html I don't see how branching or merging is any easier than I recall from Subversion or cvs.

by hasenj 16y ago

mberning 16y ago

I'm having a hard time understanding the second point. I have never felt that my VCS prevented me from doing ANYTHING, even when I was forced to use completely shit systems like Visual Source Safe 6.0. Are you saying that you wanted to build systems that integrated very tightly with version control, or that the difficulties you experienced with older version control tools prevented you from being more adventurous in your coding?

hasenj 16y ago
It's not the presence of a bad VCS. It's the lack of a decent one. Without git, it's really hard to take bold steps in redesigning the project, because one would be afraid it won't work, and then you'll lose all the progress you had so far. Git solves this problem. Just start a new branch and work in it. If it works, great, merge mack to the master branch. If it fails, no big deal, discard this branch and go back to master. Basically git encourages experimenting in a way no other system does.
- georgieporgie 16y ago
  Just start a new branch and work in it. If it works, great, merge mack to the master branch. If it fails, no big deal, discard this branch and go back to master. How does that not describe more traditional VCSes like cvs and subversion?
  - eru 16y ago
    Merging used to be harder in them, and forking was a big deal.
    - aerique 16y ago
      Even moving directories was a pain in the ass in CVS.
    - georgieporgie 16y ago
      Having read through this: http://book.git-scm.com/3_basic_branching_and_merging.html http://book.git-scm.com/3_basic_branching_and_merging.html I don't see how branching or merging is any easier than I recall from Subversion or cvs.