Hi,
no worries, Peter.
I believe git is simple to use for those that are just updating
their check-out.
But hard for those who try to commit back into it. Like critics
call APL a write-only
language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-only_language)
it seems like git is
a read-only repository.
Best Regards,
Jürgen
On 12/22/19 4:05 PM, Peter Teeson
wrote:
Oh my goodness….. I apologize for touching some bad memories….. I
withdraw my suggestion, Please forgive my naivety.
Personally I have not had those kind of issues.
Hi
Blake,
thanks.
Ad 0. Actually there is a worse system: clearcase.
Not sure if it still exists. I still recall from
about 20 years ago, after travelling across
Europe to attend a code review, that I couldn't
see a single line of code, apparently due to
missing "views", and nobody was able to fix
that (the responsible clearcase admin was on
vacation or so).
Ad 5. I ran into exactly that problem. After to
crowd moved to git, I moved my (at that time
separate) SVN repos into one git repo with one
subdir per SVN repo. Reason was
dependencies between two of the repos that came
up after the repose were created.
Some other repos were moved into other subdirs of
that same git repo. After that, I got
millions of merge conflicts when co-workers pushed
changes into their directories.
It was often weeks during which I could not push
my changes, and in the end I had to
submitted my changes by email. In svn you can
simply delete conflicting dirs and
svn up will happily recreate them. In git this will
send you into a merge because the
delete is another change that wants to be pushed
(which you can't due to still
pending conflicts).
Ad 6. You cannot commit empty directories in git.
How stupid is that? I know there are
workarounds to fix this, but why would you? I
normally start a new project with empty
directories: trunk, tags, and branches. Push them in
git and nothing happens. At that
point your local build may succeed while a fresh
check-out of the same repo will fail.
Best Regards,
Jürgen
On 12/22/19 12:34 PM,
Blake McBride wrote:
I couldn't agree with Jürgen more!
Although I agree that GIT has become the most popular, having used both GIT, SVN, and others, I can't imagine a worse system than GIT because:
1. What? You can change history?!?
2. Although I have a very long career, have learned many systems, authored a computer language (Dynace), I am clearly not smart enough to understand GIT. Many times I have gotten myself into a mess with GIT (never with SVN). Interestingly, not even the "experts" could help me with GIT problems. Err. Try this, try that. I can't even understand its history.
3. I like a central point of truth and think it is vitally important.
4. When cloning you get every change since day one. That's nuts! It takes forever to clone a large system. They seem to have the philosophy that disk space is free but the Internet is not always available. I prefer the philosophy that the Internet is always available (or available enough) and disk space and my time are not.
5. GIT forces you to keep separate projects in separate repos. How do you keep them in sync? SVN doesn't have this problem.
The bottom line for me is that SVN is far, far simpler, and it has a better model.
Blake McBride
Hi Peter,
since GNU APL is hosted on Savannah, I
suppose you can use git already if you
want:
https://savannah.gnu.org/git/?group=apl
or:
git clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/apl.git
Regarding myself, I'd rather die before using git. My last employer tried to
make me change from SVN to git (the argument being that I was the last
SVN user in the company) and I decided I'd be better off enjoying my retirement
rather than wasting my time messing with git problems instead of programming.
My obvious aversion against git is based on quite some working experience
with git. Even though I am using SVN since 15 or so years (compared to 3 years
git) , I have in total spent more time on git (-problems) than on SVN (-problems).
Best regards,
Jürgen Sauermann
On 12/22/19 3:15 AM, Peter
Teeson wrote:
GNUApl seems to me to be pretty stable at the present time. So I’m wondering what people think about the following:
My sense is that Git is the version control system of choice these days and has pretty much replaced SVN the way it replaced CVS.
There is git-svn module which provides bi-directional maintenance capability. In particular will preserve in git the historical svn commit meta data if desired.
Similarly github has replaced sourceforge for collaborative project repositories.
Been working with both git and github for a couple of years now and wonder how folks feel about moving to them?
IMO I think it would be a good move to future proof the source since I think very few people are learning svn anymore.
Comments? And yes I’d be willing to take a shot at it.
Not just out of curiosity but with the intention of switching for the future proofing reason at some cutoff date.
respect….
Peter
P.S. Learning the basics of git are not too difficult and there are lots of good tutorials as well as the git book which is freely downloadable.
|