a git plan, long term

[Cantor, Scott]

On 8/8/13 6:27 PM, "Scott Koranda" <skoranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Git, on the other hand, uses an elegant and inexpensive technique so
>that branching is fast. You will not give creating a new branch just to
>explore,
>experiment, or make a small bug fix a second thought because it is so
>easy and fast.

I do, though, because it confuses the hell out of me. I tried it, and I
hated it. I wouldn't branch often or comfortably regardless of which tool
we used, and so I'm fairly sure I will find no value in git over and above
that it does a reasonable job of allowing cross-machine syncing without
exposing uncommitted work.

However, apart from the horrid syntax and command structure, I didn't find
git to be that much worse than svn and it wasn't something I couldn't use
in the extremely limited way I would use any SCM.

So I'm not going to fight a move, I just have no particular eagerness for
it.

I think Brent derives more value from svn, and so is more negatively
impacted than I am.

>Branching in git is so fast I do create a new branch for each work unit,
>be it a bug fix or just a small feature enhancement.

It's not a question of speed, but of complexity overhead. Managing and
understanding all those branches beaome a nightmare for me, so I stopped
doing that very quickly.

I guess I just found it messy and chaotic, and couldn't get comfortable
with it.

>P.S. One of my favorite git features is 'stash'--with one command I
>can take all the current uncommitted edits and have them stashed away
>safely while I go back to master, branch quickly, make a bug fix,
>commit it, push, then "unstash" and pick right up where I left off.

That was, in fact, the only aspect of git for its own sake I didn't
dislike, and did actually like.

It was very clear to me that git and I don't think alike. This is not
unusual for me with most popular open source tools.

-- Scott