Re: [tlug] Great Git resources

[Darren Cook <darren@example.com>]

> I hope this doesn't start a flame war :-), but in your own 
> words, can you explain why you are using Git as opposed to 
> (say) Subversion? ...

Good timing, as I've been meaning to blog on just this theme.

I've been using git for new projects recently, still using svn for older
projects (and cvs for a couple of even older projects). Typically if I
make the decision of which to use then I'm the only developer, so it is
mainly for backup and storing a log history.

What I like about git is it is so easy to get started. I can be in any
directory, just open a shell and type "git init", then I can "git add"
the files I want to work on. I can gradually add more of the files as I
go. None of this messing around with setting up a repository on a server
first, messing around with login strings, etc.

The fact that the idiot who designed git used the keyword "revert" with
a different meaning to the rest of the developer universe is just a
minor irritant. (Tip: "git checkout" is what you want.) [1]

The *big* irritant with git is that there are no good support tools. For
SVN I'm using RapidSVN, which I'd describe as quite good: awkward at
times, but more productive than using the commandline. Especially as it
integrates with meld.

Git has gitg, gitk, git-gui, etc. and they are all very similar and all
pointless. Well, some of them will draw pretty pictures of your merge
graphs. But for seeing what you've changed, for doing commmits, etc.
they are useless.

Also, moving from git from knowing svn is a much bigger learning curve
than moving from cvs to svn. BTW I cannot recommend the O'Reilly
"Version Control with Git" book; it might be good as a 2nd git book if
you've mastered it and now want to understand all the internals and
exotic commands. But, for teaching you just what you actually need to
know, it is quite confusing. Or git is just confusing. I've not used git
enough yet to comment on that :-)

Darren

[1]: I wouldn't mind if the git meaning of "revert" fitted better. But
it actually means "I'd like to alter one of earlier commits". "git
recommit" or "git fixcommit" would have made more sense.
Rant over, back to work :-)




-- 
Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer

http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work)
http://dcook.org/blogs.html (My blogs and articles)