4 ms·
I could commit pretty freely using Subversion or Perforce to. As for the faster Git commits, is that just because you are only commiting locally? You still have
by j_col 15y ago
I could commit pretty freely using Subversion or Perforce to. As for the faster Git commits, is that just because you are only commiting locally? You still have the overhead of pushing to your central repo. Reading the original article, it seems his reason for switching to Git can be summed up in one word: Github.
- jaggederest 15y ago> I could commit pretty freely using Subversion or Perforce to. Pretty freely is not freely. That's like having 'decent' freedom of speech, y'see. Git allows you to commit any time, so fast you won't even notice the pause. > As for the faster Git commits, is that just because you are only commiting locally? You still have the overhead of pushing to your central repo. Yes, it's faster because it only commits locally. You should not push every commit to the central repo, and you should be committing more or less every time you change a file. Git allows you to be far more granular than SVN or perforce did. It also allows you to throw things away and try things out without worrying about hurting someone else. Branching in SVN/Perforce is simply not worth the effort, but on Git, it's trivial.
- brown9-2 15y agoBut in svn or p4 those commits are visible to everyone else immediately. With git they are only visible when you are ready to make them so - and you can amend or merge them into a single commit or slice them however you want beforehand. Having your own private repo other than what is on the server allows you to experiment and make a lot more mistake without affecting others.