Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Bruno Santos (bsantos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 10:17:54
On 20/03/2012, at 13:45, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>> You should have used rebase to refresh your repository, not merge :)
>> Also when things are really starting to look bad, your best help are two
>> commands "git reflog" and "git reset --hard" :)
> Hmm strange - I never ran into something like that with SVN, where somebody
> told me 'you should have done it this way and not that way' (and yes, before
> you ask, I've had quite a bit of exposure to GIT myself).
> Let's face it, GIT is a usability nightmare (IMHO) and it will not enable
> anything we couldn't do with SVN (or with Mercurial for that matter) if we
> only wanted to (IHMO, at least I still have to see somebody giving me that
> use case).
And SVN is nightmare for team work. Thats how I started to hate it.
The simple fact that you can't commit before an update is a complete nightmare and production killer.
Not to mention the nightmare of having to resolve conflicts before you could commit.
With git i can commit, commit, commit and at the end day push it to central repo and solve conflicts in one go if necessary,
and if a screw up I have the complete history of change sets.
SVN is very poor in this regards, before git come out I had to resort to bash scripts and patch files to overcome svn limitations.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk