That... isnt actually true? I have used repos that spans more than a couple of thousands commits, spanning several years back? Den 16 feb. 2017 3:46 fm skrev "Zachary Gorden" <drakekaizer...@gmail.com>:
> I've used both git and svn in work environments. If all you do is git pull > and git push, you end up with lots of noise in the commit log with git > tracking every single merge because you don't rebase. Combined with the > fact that git has an upper limit on how much history it can track and the > solution literally being to purge history, I'm not exactly sure why all of > you are so enthused about it. Unless the team wants to adopt having a > single person being responsible for all commits going into the canonical > master repo to avoid all of the problems with how git tracks history, the > commit log is going to be next to useless for actual tracking of history. > If you don't care about the commit history, then sure, go ahead, but I > personally would like to be able to easily track changes back cleanly. We > get that basically for free with svn right now. With git, the usage > patterns that those of you pushing for git are promoting actively works > against keeping a clean history. > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Alex Ionescu <ion...@videotron.ca> wrote: > >> Sure, I didn't count git add because you can do it with git commit -a. >> git status/log are the same as the svn equivalents. just like git >> diff/svn diff. I was mainly referring to regular workflow. >> >> In fact, I think outside of stash (which is an optional, but awesome, >> feature) fetch and rebase (which I refuse to learn), all commands map >> 1:1 with svn. That's why I don't get this whole "it takes way more >> commands/steps in git". >> >> git commit -a -m "[BOOTLIB] Fix yet another bug]" >> git push >> >> Done. >> >> Best regards, >> Alex Ionescu >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:48 PM, David Quintana (gigaherz) >> <gigah...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > My command set is a bit more extended: >> > >> > git clone -- similar to svn checkout into a new folder >> > git checkout -- for changing the current branch >> > git pull -- effectively the same as "svn update", xcept it gets the >> entire >> > change history, not just the latest commit data >> > git push [--force] -- for sending changes into the repository >> > git fetch -- downloads stuff but doesn't apply it to the checkout copy >> > git merge -- can be used to merge the remote data (in which case it's >> like >> > svn update), or to merge from another branch >> > git branch >> > git add >> > git commit >> > git stash save/pop -- can be used to temporarily undo some changes, and >> be >> > able to recover them afterward >> > git status, git log, ... -- for getting info about the state of the >> > repository and the uncommited changes >> > ... and more I that I use less often >> > >> > I do agree that it is a bit annoying that git has so much trouble >> pulling >> > with local changes, and that is the one area where svn just simply works >> > better. In every other aspect, I have come to like the "git way" more. >> > >> > That said, I avoid commandline git as much as possible. I prefer to use >> > TortoiseGit (in Windows, at home), or SourceTree (at work, where I use a >> > mac, and SourceTree is probably the least shitty frontend for git). >> > >> > I like to say, that for someone who knows Subversion, learning git >> starts by >> > realizing that all the usual svn concepts, apply to git, just NOT with >> the >> > remote repository. The svn-like commands work with the local repository >> > clone, and then it has a separate command set for interacting with >> remotes. >> > Of course it's not a 1:1 match, but it's a good starting point. If you >> are >> > able to "catch" that, then learning how to work with git becomes a LOT >> > easier. >> > >> > >> > >> > On 16 February 2017 at 00:31, Alex Ionescu <ion...@videotron.ca> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Zachary Gorden >> >> <drakekaizer...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Why is there a need for anything beyond "git commit" or "git push" or >> >> > "git >> >> > pull" to do anything? >> >> >> >> Good question. I've never used any other git command other than those >> >> (except git checkout). Oh, that's lie, I've also used "git branch", >> >> just like on svn, to create a branch. >> >> >> >> Sounds like you've never actually used git? I've never rebased in my >> >> life, and I don't know what other commands even exist. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Alex Ionescu >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Ros-dev mailing list >> >> Ros-dev@reactos.org >> >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Ros-dev mailing list >> > Ros-dev@reactos.org >> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ros-dev mailing list >> Ros-dev@reactos.org >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
