4 ms·
IMHO, for a single commiter use-case DVCS add an un-necessary level of complexity. I use Git for my personal projects simply because I am lazy to switch between
by lsh123 12y ago
IMHO, for a single commiter use-case DVCS add an un-necessary level of complexity. I use Git for my personal projects simply because I am lazy to switch between different tools. And even for multiple contributors, Git is not ideal. For example, the "single" source tree version doesn't allow parallel check-ins in different parts of the code. I've seen a 50+ developers project with an active trunk where Git was a blocker because it was hard to push your code because of other people pushes. For example, SVN is much better in this regard and allows commits as long as it is not in the same files. Yes, one can split the big project into sub-projects, etc. but sometimes it is not really possible.
- mixologic 12y ago"I've seen a 50+ developers project with an active trunk where Git was a blocker because it was hard to push your code because of other people pushes" That's a clear misunderstanding of how to use git. The whole idea of having a single source tree is unnecessarily limiting - everybody works in their own branches, pushes to a origin/github remote, and when their work is gtg for the trunk, they, in their branch do a git pull --rebase, or alternately do a `git fetch; git rebase origin/master`. If they haven't touched any files that other people have touched, it just moves their branch point off of the current tip of origin/master, and they can merge their changes into master and push. The only time it should be hard to push code is if both people made changes to the same file, and realistically, the same lines of a file. Then you get a merge conflict which is awesome, because it's made you aware that what you're working on and what somebody else is working on may be overlapping.