Abandon your DVCS and return to sanity

Re:Abandon your DVCS and return to sanity by tootie on Tuesday March 03, 2015 @12:21PM (#9138949)

Anyone can work without internet. You just don't commit. If you really need to commit without internet, you're probably an edge case. It's a bonus, but not something I'd choose a VCS system for. My central repo is where the build server is looking, so if I'm not connected, I'm not deploying no matter which VCS I have. The repo is most definitely centralized.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Abandon your DVCS and return to sanity by StillBored on Tuesday March 03, 2015 @05:01PM (#9141083)

I suspect some of the down votes are because what you mean by commit and what a git user means by commit is different. I suspect that most people using git are "committing" in a way that would better be handled with a versioned file system.

AKA, translated for the git people, "you can work without the internet, you just don't issue pull requests (or pull for that matter)".

Where I work now we still use CVS, and frankly it works fine (even with large binaries checked in). I ran git-cvs for a while, and had a dozen different branches for all the separate features I was working on.

Then I found I was spending a metric crapload of time messing with the version control rather than writing code. CVS may be basic, but in a way that is a plus. It strongly encourages you not to have 20 different features being worked on at the same time, then merging this piece here to that piece there. No, its simple: Work on one thing in your working directory, commit it to the head, pull everyone's changes, go work on the next thing. Repeat.

Eventually I kicked my git-cvs to the curb for plain old CVS. Gives me more focus.

Now I can waste the time I spent on stack overflow (learning how to fix my git screwups) posting here...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Abandon your DVCS and return to sanity by tootie on Tuesday March 03, 2015 @06:57PM (#9141694)

Yeah, I was using "commit" in the SVN sense. Which is another good complaint against git that it rewrote the established lexicon to mean different things. Sure a git commit may be technically equivalent to an SVN commit, but when I "commit" I mean that I'm blessing a change as ready to share via a shared repo.

[ Parent | on HN ]