|
I use Mercurial, it's nonintrusive, filebased (i.e. easy to backup) and easy to use. And powerful when you need it.
|
|
|
|
|
I use Git begrudgingly.
Worst part of the learning curve is that if you have a file X.txt in branch A but not in branch B when you switch branches from A to B X.txt vanishes. It will come back when you switch back as long as it was checked in. It focuses on the repository as a whole rather than individual files.
Get a good ide for Git, they help and have all the features one normally needs. I'm enjoying GitKraken right now but have used SourceTree as well.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkTJohnson wrote: It focuses on the repository as a whole rather than individual files.
I find that's part of what makes branching incredibly easy in git though. Less is more.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
To each his own. I prefer the old days with file locking.
But the files disappearing between branches was is real PITA at times when you want to compare files.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkTJohnson wrote: To each his own. I prefer the old days with file locking.
 Fair enough.
MarkTJohnson wrote: But the files disappearing between branches was is real PITA at times when you want to compare files.
Well, you can do a diff across branches. Not sure what to click in Tortoise for it, but it has to support it since git does.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
In tortoise you would need to select the file you want to compare, view the log then control select the revisions in the log you want to compare then double click in the lower window to see the differences... I think...
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Cool, thanks.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Git is an immense over kill. SO complex, so powerful, so much more than you need, but it works. Very very well.
Take the time to get to know it, the online support is very good. You will, after a few years, wonder why you use anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
I made a pretty extensive research on the subject a few years ago and decided for Mercurial instead.
If you want to change your VC system you should anyway really opt for a distributed one.
Mercurial is filebased while Git is having a little database, so Git is having much better performance on large repositories (Yes, I'm oversimplifying things)
This is not the reason Git became the defacto standard. Almost everything else is better with Mercurial, especially the learning curve.
It was because when Linus Torvalds was choosing a DVC for Linux, he really liked a GIT function called Rebase, which allowed him to completely remove edits from people he considered idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
I also prefer Mercurial, but everyone seems to use git, so I switched so I can more easily collaborate. And I now use GitHub, so more reason for git.
Linux Torvalds likes git because he created it! Bazaar (another distributed source control system), git and Mercurial were all released within a month of each other back in 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I've long favoured Mercurial but have to use Git these days. Mercurial is nice and intuitive and does the job without any unnecessary dramas. The Tortoise front end is really easy to work with. It doesn't feel like a reinvention of ye-olde UNIX SCCS and it's generally everything you'd want in a source control system.
It's main problem vs. Git would seem to be that Git is trendy and Mercurial is not.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Use GIT
It is ugly and non intuitive which makes you think very carefully about what you are doing with it and be frugal.
Use C++ for the same reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Using GIT on TFS.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
And do you like it - using Git on TFS? I am considering this, as I am familiar with the TFS, but like Git.
I am currently using Bitbucket right now with Tortoise for Git.
|
|
|
|
|
It's amazing. GIT is GIT, so it's service provider agnostic. I've had no complaints with TFS doing it.
And the nice thing about TFS-online is the Web feature they provide to edit the code & check-in right there on the portal, the support for comparing change-sets,etc. The UX is great for code reviews. It's almost like using a mini BeyondCompare tool online.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
I find TFS barely adequate for the minimal source control needs, check in check out and branching. Expecting another user to get latest version and have it run is beyond TFS, it always misses some referenced objects.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
It depends how many people are working on a project. Git is definitely more suited to bigger teams with complex projects that require branching.
I only recently started working with Git (last 3 months) and it's not that bad, especially if you use a UI like Sourcetree. Git's branching is way better than SVN which I used to use and the Git flow built into Sourcetree works well for features, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
MERCURIAL is our the one. We use it for years and happy.
|
|
|
|
|
GitHub isn't as big as it is for nothing - I think git is pretty much the de-facto standard in a lot of the industry. It can be difficult to use, but once you get the idea of how it's supposed to work and, more importantly imho, use a tool like Sourcetree so that you don't have to remember all kinds of cli commands, it's pretty manageable.
Especially the easy forking and merging is great, or even just switching branches near instantaneously if something comes up. I can also continue using it even if I can't reach my "central" repo (i.e. I can't connect to GitHub for whatever reason), and I can just push my commits later when the connection is back (don't know if TFS can do this these days, haven't used it in quite a few years).
|
|
|
|
|
might as well ask. Windows or Apple. iFruit or GHome.
GIT is difficult at best. It works well.
TFS is easy. Too easy you end up not having things work the way you want.
Mercurial YAY
GIT at an old job, TFS at current job. Mercurial at home and if I ever, ever get to pick at a future postion. Mercurial
To err is human to really mess up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
Since you mention TFS, I'm assuming you're in the MSFT space somewhere. We use git integrated with VS.
Full disclosure, I wasn't involved with the setup, and we've had a few different repos over the years; that part may be painful, I can't say.
I like it. We've got a pretty nice strategy for making branches for each project that seems to be working well. Within your local branch, you can do a commit when you get to a milestone/need to go to another branch for bug fix/whatever without affecting the remote repository.
In fact, just this morning I did a check-in for my development branch because an alleged bug in our upcoming release needs to be investigated. So, I make a branch off of the release, get that local, and check things out. If a change is, in fact, necessary, I check in in, commit remote, do a pull request to merge that into the release, and that gets deployed for a QA double-check.
When I'm done investigating, I just go back to development branch, build, and I'm back in that change.
|
|
|
|
|
TFS without question.
I've been using git for two years now and despite knowing it quite well, despise it. Recently, my hate hasn't grown, but only because I'm the only one on my current repository. No more massive merge headaches. No devs wondering why Git suddenly refuses to pull correctly. Not having to spend almost twenty minutes pulling down a fresh copy (Git really doesn't handle binaries very well.)
The worse part of Git is the stuff it fails at, like file renames with changes. Its "integration" with Bitbuck and Jira is pretty shaky. It also encourages what I see as bad practices, such as rewriting history.
TFS, by contrast, uses a workflow I vastly prefer and it just works.
BTW, here's something I've long noticed with Git; developers avoid complex changes for fear of having to do a complex merge. This is exacerbated by the workflow Git imposes. I don't really blame them; at a place I worked last year, one merge failed so badly that ALL commits after it had to be tossed, everything was rolled back to just before the merge.Before any screams the cliche--they didn't know git--they actually knew git better than anyone I know.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know the link to TFS ON-LINE these days? Thought I had it but what I got to looks totally different
NM - I found it - As with all things Microsoft, they changed it again
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
modified 14-Nov-17 12:18pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
