5 ms·
Had to switch from mercurial to git. Both are nice, neither is perfect. I long for the time when we won't have to do so much ancillary work to just sync up fil
by gbog 15y ago
Had to switch from mercurial to git. Both are nice, neither is perfect.
I long for the time when we won't have to do so much ancillary work to just sync up files. My bet: In 5 years, all these contrived workflows will be replaced by:
sync file1 file2 "fix bug 5782"
- tikhonj 15y agoYou know, syncing is the least I do with Git. In fact, for my personal projects, the syncing is entirely incidental--just a lazy way to publish and back up my files. In addition to syncing, I use Git to keep track of my history, to maintain multiple versions in parallel, to work on different features at the same time without interfering with each other and probably a bunch of other things I'm forgetting. All this just for projects with one programmer--for work and group projects, I use even more complicated features. So yes, if all you want is syncing, perhaps Git is contrived. But if you actually want version control, it's actually pretty simple.
- gbog 15y agoI see what you mean but one could consider version control as a subproduct of syncing a working directory with a trunk. That do not need to mean syncing between different user's working directories.
- pozorvlak 15y agoWe tried that - it was called Subversion. The industry's abandoning that way of doing things because the new way is simpler and better.