Re: [PLUG] Git: net time gain or loss?

Just remember git was written, adopted, and now maintained by many people that use vim or emacs. There is a reason why on windows or through vendors such as gitlab have made a significant amount of money providing tooling to use git. Git is designed with the same mindset of vim and emacs, where work flow of the end users is all that matters.

I have personally only had issues with git when I work with others that do not understand git. If you have ever worked with a co-worker that has modified files, never committed their code after the 4th commit, or ever fetched upstream to make sure their changes are alright... The disaster waiting for you can be painful. Otherwise, it isn't too bad for the most part.

-Will

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 20:46 Rich Freeman <r-plug@thefreemanclan.net wrote:

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:58 PM JP Vossen <jp@jpsdomain.org> wrote:
>
> I was just struggling with several things that should be simple[1], but
> since it's Git they aren't [2], and I got to thinking (and THAT's never
> good). Git is blazingly fast, and for the right users it's an awesome
> tool. But for the wrong users it's a infuriatingly frustrating
> time-suck to do...just about anything. And I've argued [3] that _most_
> users are the wrong users.
>
> So...does Git create a net time gain or net time loss in the world? For
> me it's a _massive_ net loss.
>
> Thoughts?

Personally I strongly prefer git, but didn't like it until I groked it.

This really sounds like the thread we had not long ago about text
markup and large documents. 99% of the world uses Microsoft Word for
everything, but most who are fairly adept at managing large documents
would probably agree that Word sucks for anything over a few pages (as
does LibreOffice). Just as markdown is superior to Word for these
tasks but seldom used, git is superior to just about every other VCS
out there but is also seldom used, for basically the same reasons.
Until you grok them, both markdown and git are difficult to use
properly.

I'll go ahead and cite the popular saying that git is a data model
masquerading as a VCS. Even its proponents (I consider myself one)
would probably agree that its command line is ugly. It is also fairly
different from previous VCSs in that files are subordinate to commits,
and not the other way around.

All that said, I haven't messed around with the modern alternatives.
I'm not really sure at this point that there is much point in that.
Git is good enough for my needs, and it is what everybody else uses.

Now, what I do wish somebody would come up with is a distributed
issue-tracking system. That is a distributed alternative to bugzilla
and similar tools. It seems like for most projects a bug tracker ends
up being the one tool that can only exist as some kind of monolithic
tool that is impossible to fork in a sane manner, and it also tends to
be the bit that ends up being proprietary and non-portable in every
cloud-based git hosting service.

--
Rich
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug