4 ms·
ok: Workflow with svn: 1. Edit some files. 2. svn commit -m "commit message" (ok, I add an svn up && before, but I consider that one step). done Workflow
by einhverfr 13y ago
ok:
Workflow with svn:
1. Edit some files.
2. svn commit -m "commit message" (ok, I add an svn up && before, but I consider that one step).
done
Workflow with git:
1. Edit some files
2. git commit
3. Review the message to see which files I actually want to add, if there is anything that needs to go into git ignore, etc.
4. Edit .gitignore as necessary
5. git add *
6. git commit -m "commit message"
7. git push
So for simple cases you have 3 times as many steps, for more complex cases you have more steps. Note that I usually push/pull from my own github repo and not a central one because that avoids a lot of other hassle (and then use pull requests for managing inter-repo changes, something github has done a nice job with).
Additionally absent this you have a significant likelihood that you end up with various files that aren't a part of your build environment (generated makefiles, backups of generated makefiles, built packages, etc) accidently pushed out to your central repo.
- adekok 13y agoOnly if you make git that complicated. Steps 2-6 can be replaced with: git commit -m "commit message" file1 file2 ... When you use a tool inefficiently, don't blame the tool.
- einhverfr 13y agoThat's still a lot more verbose than svn and even if you do that, you still have only managed to reduce the number of commands required from 3x to 2x what svn requires. Also wouldn't you agree that git has a much steeper learning curve than svn? What is this due to if not the added complexity?
- janvidar 13y ago1) Edit some files 2) git commit -a -m "blah blah" 3) git push So, it adds one extra command to push things to an upstream git repository. But, this is the nature of being decentralized.