3 ms·
Paying the cost of a distributed system for a centralized team of 10 is a horrible idea. Better for someone on the team to teach everyone else a simple set of r
by tsimionescu 3y ago
Paying the cost of a distributed system for a centralized team of 10 is a horrible idea. Better for someone on the team to teach everyone else a simple set of rules (git checkout -b before starting a new featire, git pull --rebase origin to keep up to date, git push origin when you're done) and pretend Git is a centralized system as much as possible. You're anyway going to have a central server which is the source of truth. If your local copy goes bad, there's always rm -rf ./ && git clone. No reason to pretend your local history has some value.
Of course, if you are working on a highly distributed project, like the Linux kernel, many of the Git tools are absolutely invaluable. But there's no reason to bother with them if you're not.
- tonymet 3y agoI like your idea of feature branches, but people do need to know the data model and how to manage their history. They will inevitably be out of sync and clumsily tring to get merge all day to get their files in sync. Keeping the history clean is more important than just syncing files.