4 ms·

I think there is a good space around "version control for everyone else". I have been using overleaf for writing papers, which just does auto sync, and commits

I think there is a good space around "version control for everyone else". I have been using overleaf for writing papers, which just does auto sync, and commits to a git repository in the background. It isn't perfect, but it is the best thing I know of for letting experts and beginners work together smoothly.

jcfields 6y ago
Mac OS has had a built-in file versioning system (separate from Time Machine) since Lion or so that works with any program that uses the standard document saving APIs. Most Mac users probably aren't aware that their computer stores potentially hundreds of previous versions of their documents (in evictable space, of course). The interface for it is kind of trash and isn't accessible in every app, though. (Over the summer, I made a command-line [https://gitlab.com/jcfields/versions https://gitlab.com/jcfields/versions] and a GUI program [https://gitlab.com/jcfields/restore https://gitlab.com/jcfields/restore] for accessing this system outside of the standard UI, if anyone's interested, though the binaries are not notarized so the OS will show a scary warning the first time you use them.) Granted, it's not exactly the same thing since you're not making commits at discrete and meaningful points like in a software version control system and since it works on an individual file level, which might not be ideal for every workflow, but it's still really useful when you realize you need to roll something back to an earlier state. I think modern versions of Windows use the Volume Shadow Copy service to store backups of files at given snapshot points (such as when your computer runs a scheduled backup or creates a System Restore point), which can be pulled up in the file properties. I use to use NTBackup to do basically the same thing in a more crude way back in the Windows XP days. This isn't as nice as the Mac Versions feature since it requires setting up periodic backups, but it's something. I'd be curious if any of the free desktops have come up with a simple and user-friendly solution to this. I feel like this is an area where there's a lot of room for improvement, since the majority of users would probably benefit from these systems but most aren't even aware they exist.
bird_monster 6y ago
I work at a games studio, where artists/designers create and manage game assets via our game's source control. I personally dislike Git, but I absolutely think Git is a borderline-unacceptable choice for everyone that hasn't been hazed into the industry with it. The amount of "I accidentally lost all my animation files for ____ feature" is huge. I think most of the positive talk about git UX just waters down to "I know it already", which is evidenced by most of the responses to valid git UX criticisms being "You just don't understand." To me, version control should be as complex as a user wants it to be. Meaning, UX so obvious that you don't need docs or manuals or youtube videos to do the simplest of tasks if you don't want to. There should definitely be room for power users to be power users, but I think git absolutely fails at letting both novices and those that aren't interested in version-control-as-a-specialty be consistently productive and safe. It's always been very curious to me that, for so many parts of dev, we re-invent the wheel a thousand times to try to find the "right" configuration, which ultimately leaves you with a very wide array of options for every one job, but for source control we seem to have just kind of shrugged and said "Git's fine."

jcfields 6y ago

Mac OS has had a built-in file versioning system (separate from Time Machine) since Lion or so that works with any program that uses the standard document saving APIs. Most Mac users probably aren't aware that their computer stores potentially hundreds of previous versions of their documents (in evictable space, of course). The interface for it is kind of trash and isn't accessible in every app, though. (Over the summer, I made a command-line [https://gitlab.com/jcfields/versions https://gitlab.com/jcfields/versions] and a GUI program [https://gitlab.com/jcfields/restore https://gitlab.com/jcfields/restore] for accessing this system outside of the standard UI, if anyone's interested, though the binaries are not notarized so the OS will show a scary warning the first time you use them.) Granted, it's not exactly the same thing since you're not making commits at discrete and meaningful points like in a software version control system and since it works on an individual file level, which might not be ideal for every workflow, but it's still really useful when you realize you need to roll something back to an earlier state. I think modern versions of Windows use the Volume Shadow Copy service to store backups of files at given snapshot points (such as when your computer runs a scheduled backup or creates a System Restore point), which can be pulled up in the file properties. I use to use NTBackup to do basically the same thing in a more crude way back in the Windows XP days. This isn't as nice as the Mac Versions feature since it requires setting up periodic backups, but it's something. I'd be curious if any of the free desktops have come up with a simple and user-friendly solution to this. I feel like this is an area where there's a lot of room for improvement, since the majority of users would probably benefit from these systems but most aren't even aware they exist.

bird_monster 6y ago

I work at a games studio, where artists/designers create and manage game assets via our game's source control. I personally dislike Git, but I absolutely think Git is a borderline-unacceptable choice for everyone that hasn't been hazed into the industry with it. The amount of "I accidentally lost all my animation files for ____ feature" is huge. I think most of the positive talk about git UX just waters down to "I know it already", which is evidenced by most of the responses to valid git UX criticisms being "You just don't understand." To me, version control should be as complex as a user wants it to be. Meaning, UX so obvious that you don't need docs or manuals or youtube videos to do the simplest of tasks if you don't want to. There should definitely be room for power users to be power users, but I think git absolutely fails at letting both novices and those that aren't interested in version-control-as-a-specialty be consistently productive and safe. It's always been very curious to me that, for so many parts of dev, we re-invent the wheel a thousand times to try to find the "right" configuration, which ultimately leaves you with a very wide array of options for every one job, but for source control we seem to have just kind of shrugged and said "Git's fine."