Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-21 00:07:22

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Hm.. I must be not understanding something.. Are you arguing that not all
> commits/check-ins you do to a local/private repository are important enough
> to merit the benefits of collaboration? I ask because my contention is that
> if it's important enough for you to put something into a VCS history, it's
> important enough for you collaborators to inspect it.. for perpetuity. And
> that the sooner that inspection happens the better it is for everyone. Hence
> that deleting such history is counter to collaboration.
>

I would guess, yes, the argument is that not all local commits are
important enough.

I hit Ctrl-S more often than I commit to a (central) VCS.  I do a
local commit at a frequency somewhere between Ctrl-S and
central-commit. I see no problem there.  Many people find that
mid-frequency commit quite an attractive feature.

P.S. I am currently in the "I hate Git" camp.  I'm trying to use it,
but one of us is not yielding to the other.  I typically understand
things quite quickly (except women - still working on that), but I
find git hard to wrap my head around.  And I don't think VC should be
hard to get started with - no other system I've used has been as hard.
 They can be hard for complicated things, and maybe git excels at
those, but I find it harder than necessary for relatively simple
things.  I assume I will eventually appreciate how it works.
Eventually.  I also find all the docs, tutorials, etc atrocious.  I
hope to be able to write something better once I understand it, but I
fear by then I will have gone over to the other side and will just
write the same only-makes-sense-if-you-already-understand-it stuff
that everyone else has written.

Tony