3 ms·
That's an interesting viewpoint, which explains some of the problems I have been having with git. I can see that git is a very natural way of storing, modifyin
by CJefferson 14y ago
That's an interesting viewpoint, which explains some of the problems I have been having with git.
I can see that git is a very natural way of storing, modifying and passing around change sets, to a range of people.
I previously used svn more for a way of 'recording all of history', and it annoys me that git really feels like it fights against this viewpoint. I can see why, as recording all of history makes passing around, changing and merging changesets more a pain.
Don't really have a solution to this. Might try hg, as it might fit better with my mental model.
- rogerbinns 14y agoThe biggest difference is in defaults. Hg defaults are more applicable to smaller teams while Git's are towards larger ones. (You can always apply extra flags to get the desired behaviour in either case.) For example with tags a `git push` does not send them to the other end. If 1,000 people are cooperating then you don't want to see everyone's tags. (`git push --tags` will send them.)