A note regarding your terminology:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 03:50:40AM +0200, Ohad Lutzky wrote:
I still believe that with warning on those two issues, git is simple enough
to use, and that the ability to work offline is well worth it.
Work offline is a problem only if the alternative is SVN
On Friday 16 Oct 2009 09:17:57 Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with you regarding version control systems.
Specifically distributed version control systems make the common case of
a repository for the project simple. Unlike Subversion, you don't need
to
Ohad Lutzky wrote:
I specifically didn't teach them checkout, for this exact reason...
To me, being able to check out an older version is the number 1 use of a
version control system. I fail to see the use of the whole thing without it.
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source
This is for their instructor to do, and for them to be taught about later on
:)I'll only teach them how to check out older versions after I explain
branches - that way they can be aware of the dangers of committing on
non-branches.
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Shachar Shemesh
Ohad Lutzky wrote:
This is for their instructor to do, and for them to be taught about
later on :)
I'll only teach them how to check out older versions after I explain
branches - that way they can be aware of the dangers of committing on
non-branches.
Wouldn't it be simpler to teach them a
Of course it would. But this one puts a lot of candy down that same path as
well. These mines hurt, but are not fatal (again, from my experience, all
mistakes can be recovered if detected within a reasonable time), and git's
features make it, IMO, worth the trouble. For example, while many people
