(e.g. 'allows private work' - my amazing hard drive allows me to do that!)
Yes, but git allows you to commit offline -- instead of yr repository being on a server, it's stored locally, so you can do everything you would -- branch, merge, commit, revert etc on your ownsome, and if you want it stored somewhere else, you push it up to them.
I prefer that to subversion because I can make my local sandbox a total pigsty without the "good" server copy becoming a mess as well. I imagine that'd be handy if you were dealing with lots of developers too -- they can have local branches, then merge back and push. Or other people can pull from their copies to work on their changes, etc.
― stet, Saturday, 2 August 2008 00:59 (fourteen years ago) link
There's a guy at work, who is a total genius, and his three questions are:
- So what?
- Who cares?
- Why now?
And what I can't figure about the being able to "commit offline" (which I'm not sure what means) I think I would ask the first two questions about. Can't you just not pollute the repository by kind of not committing?
― Keith, Saturday, 2 August 2008 01:04 (fourteen years ago) link
By committing offline, I mean you can be entirely offline -- no connection to the server at all -- and still have the full version control set of commands going on. When you commit, it's not sent to a remote server, it's just incorporated locally.
That's where it's different from polluting the repository simply by not committing: you can do lots of commits, reverts etc, but it doesn't affect anyone else or the repository (though there isn't really such a thing under git) until you push those changes out.
― stet, Saturday, 2 August 2008 01:23 (fourteen years ago) link
― Keith, Saturday, 2 August 2008 01:24 (fourteen years ago) link
Sorry. Just asking the question. What's good about that? How does it make it so much better?
The guy who asks these questions reported to SD we were talking about earlier... He's a switched on guy.
― Keith, Saturday, 2 August 2008 01:25 (fourteen years ago) link
Well, under subversion if you're not polluting the repository by committing, you're left to basically do your version control by hand -- if you don't commit to the server, your changes aren't being stored so you can't revert. With git you can snapshot your state at any time, revert to it, and so on, all in private. xp
― stet, Saturday, 2 August 2008 01:27 (fourteen years ago) link
Oh OK, assuming your development environment doesn't let you roll back stuff, then that would be true. I suppose Deano doing vim development would appreciate this.
― Keith, Saturday, 2 August 2008 01:30 (fourteen years ago) link
and all the RoR/Textmate crew :)
― stet, Saturday, 2 August 2008 01:31 (fourteen years ago) link
That's true. There are lots of tools that would help them out.
― Keith, Saturday, 2 August 2008 01:32 (fourteen years ago) link
But I suppose it would result in just developing the same things but in a different place. It probably is inevitable. I've come to conclude that people don't learn from history.
― Keith, Saturday, 2 August 2008 01:33 (fourteen years ago) link
Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.
― ILX System, Tuesday, 5 August 2008 23:01 (fourteen years ago) link
Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.
― ILX System, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 23:01 (fourteen years ago) link
version control is ~great~
― caek, Monday, 21 May 2012 18:29 (ten years ago) link
> I suppose Deano doing vim development would appreciate this.> ― Keith, Saturday, 2 August 2008 01:30 (3 years ago)
you what what?
― koogs, Tuesday, 22 May 2012 21:04 (ten years ago) link