4 ms·
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 wou
by 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 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.