4 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt'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 agoJust 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 agoMerging used to be harder in them, and forking was a big deal.
- aerique 16y agoEven moving directories was a pain in the ass in CVS.
- georgieporgie 16y agoHaving 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.