| |||||||||||||
Git itGit itPosted Oct 21, 2009 21:11 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: Perforce by ceswiedler Parent article: KS2009: How Google uses Linux Git is lightning fast (at least for code, I don't know for binaries), it's distributed and (surprise surprise) it's addictive! The cycle of 'commit, commit, commit, push when you're ready' is amazingly productive. I'm using it in my first project as single developer and I wouldn't change it for anything else I've used -- including cvs, svn, ClearCase, AccuRev and a few others too shitty to mention.
(Log in to post comments)
Git it Posted Oct 31, 2009 4:55 UTC (Sat) by Holmes1869 (guest, #42043) [Link]
I'm in the exact same situation. Been using it for 3 months now for a personal project (hope to put it up on Gitorious.org someday), and I've just been blown away. "git rebase -i" (I use it a lot since no one else is depending on me) is just amazing. "git add -i" (for committing individual pieces of a file) has single-handedly made me despise using SVN at my day job. I really used to love SVN too.
That being said, I feel that some of the git features will only ever be used by people that take source control seriously. The people I work with check-in code without commit messages, mistakenly commit files that they forgot they changed (or other random files that ended up in their sandbox), and don't ever perform a simple 'svn diff' (or Subclipse comparison) just to make sure they are checking in what they want. Do you think these people care that they can re-order or squash a commit to create a single pristine, neat, atomic commit to fix exactly one particular bug? Probably not unfortunately. I hope to one day work with people that do care.
|
|||||||||||||