Reply to: GIT - is it me or is it just really horrible?

[d000hg]

It's worth reflecting on just how remarkable the tools we have are. Every modern developer takes something like Git for granted, and expects it to basically be free. Many other examples of course.

[LondonManc]

DevOps now integrates pretty well with Git, as does VS of course - actually the git features in VS are really well done from my usage.

Agreed. We Data Engineers have had git thrust upon us because snowflake UX Devs don't understand DevOps.

[d000hg]

Sorry to burst your bubble but I've been contracting for 15 years (and perm for many years prior to that) and this is the first time I've had a client who used Git.

I've worked with a fair few big corporates over the years as well as smaller outfits. I'm sure Git is very popular but don't overlook the fact that at lot of places are still using "old-school" source control.



Again, not all software projects are large, globally distributed affairs. I can certainly see the benefits of a Git-type system in those circumstances, but many companies will have smaller localised code-bases that don't require that type of functionality. Hence why there are a lot of devs around who have not encountered Git before.

If your client isn't really a software company I would consider it lucky they have source control at all. That said, Git's not just about large, distributed affairs. Outside FOSS, I have never seen anyone really using the distributed part of Git. That's a feature that's great if you need it, but Git is just better at regular branch/merge operations than other options. I don't know if that's because it's an dVCS or just because it is, but even working in a team of 2 I would choose git. You get this stuff for free off the back of the total overkill it provides

[DoctorStrangelove]

Oh how I miss Frisbeenet.

[Dark Black]

2003 was 18 years ago. Git was released 16 years ago and has pretty much wiped out the old fashioned centralised version control. I am just amazed people have only started using something that is nearly as old as .Net and older than the invention of the iPhone

Sorry to burst your bubble but I've been contracting for 15 years (and perm for many years prior to that) and this is the first time I've had a client who used Git.

I've worked with a fair few big corporates over the years as well as smaller outfits. I'm sure Git is very popular but don't overlook the fact that at lot of places are still using "old-school" source control.

Locking and checking out files doesn't really cut it with a globally distributed and large development team making constant commits with continuous deployment...

Again, not all software projects are large, globally distributed affairs. I can certainly see the benefits of a Git-type system in those circumstances, but many companies will have smaller localised code-bases that don't require that type of functionality. Hence why there are a lot of devs around who have not encountered Git before.

[d000hg]

If you've been a constant Microsoft house, logically you'd use TFS and Azure DevOps because they integrate well with Microsoft deployments.

Tortoise SVN was fine when I used that years ago - git is just a different mindset to TFS/DevOps if you've not used it.

DevOps now integrates pretty well with Git, as does VS of course - actually the git features in VS are really well done from my usage.

[d000hg]

2003 was 18 years ago. Git was released 16 years ago and has pretty much wiped out the old fashioned centralised version control. I am just amazed people have only started using something that is nearly as old as .Net and older than the invention of the iPhone

I've been using Git for years, but I'm still from the era of VSS. You're right in the last few years it has basically become the de facto standard though. I still see SVN and TFS used but typically for isolated things rather than code-bases.

Remember when there were competing dVCS platforms though? Mercurial was big for a while and I think there was another one quite widely used. Git was probably the least user-friendly but had the momentum from the OSS side - I remember reading git was not actually designed to be used directly by developers for day-to-day coding, in the same way C was written as a systems programming language (I'm from the era of C too) not a general purpose language.

[LondonManc]

Anything that doesn't integrate with Git by default is not going to last long.

Locking and checking out files doesn't really cut it with a globally distributed and large development team making constant commits with continuous deployment...

Yeah, no idea how Microsoft are still in business with their tools.

[_V_]

Anything that doesn't integrate with Git by default is not going to last long.

Locking and checking out files doesn't really cut it with a globally distributed and large development team making constant commits with continuous deployment...

[LondonManc]

2003 was 18 years ago. Git was released 16 years ago and has pretty much wiped out the old fashioned centralised version control. I am just amazed people have only started using something that is nearly as old as .Net and older than the invention of the iPhone

Companies finally realising that it's better value to go cheaper on software tools than cheaper on developers?

When money wasn't an issue, top tools with good local devs.
Money went tight after the crash, offshore the dev. Realised the offshored devs couldn't handle it so dropped them but had to go with cheap tools to justify bringing devs back onshore perhaps.

If you've been a constant Microsoft house, logically you'd use TFS and Azure DevOps because they integrate well with Microsoft deployments.

Tortoise SVN was fine when I used that years ago - git is just a different mindset to TFS/DevOps if you've not used it.

[_V_]

I would imagine most of us here are. I'm still in my 30s and it was used at the first two places I worked ~2003. IIRC we then switched to Perforce/CVS on various projects.

2003 was 18 years ago. Git was released 16 years ago and has pretty much wiped out the old fashioned centralised version control. I am just amazed people have only started using something that is nearly as old as .Net and older than the invention of the iPhone

[d000hg]

I can't understand how anyone can find Git complicated for 99.99% of the everyday tasks?

What are you people from the Visual Source Safe era?

I would imagine most of us here are. I'm still in my 30s and it was used at the first two places I worked ~2003. IIRC we then switched to Perforce/CVS on various projects.

[DevUK]

It's not about the eliteness

you are less productive than I am as a developer.

Exhibit A.

[_V_]

It's called a distributed source control system. This isn't your grandads source control.

https://www.oshyn.com/blog/2012/06/v...vs-centralized

You guys been living under a rock?

On the other side, a Distributed VCS, like Git, is considerably faster and easier to work with when it comes to creating and merging branches and tags. Also, they allow for flexible workflows, tailored to one’s project and team needs.

[Dark Black]

It sounds to me like people are using Git wrong. I've used it solidly for about 5 years, never lost a commit or overwritten anyone else's work. You are using something like Git flow yes? Branch and merge? Nothing is ever lost, you only have to deal with conflicts.

If you are getting lots of conflicts it means either you are taking way too long to complete your changes, or there are hotspots in the code structure that need to be refactored.

I can't understand how anyone can find Git complicated for 99.99% of the everyday tasks?

What are you people from the Visual Source Safe era?

Do you think these two statements may be related?

Experience with any task will generally make that task seem easy/straightforward.

imho Git is a lot harder if you've historically been happily using Microsoft's source control tools (TFS/Azure Dev Ops). The concept of locking an item by checking it out, working on it then checking it back in against the task/story that you were updating it for is all very logical.

Coming to git after years of that is difficult, having been through it. You almost have to do what Yoda suggests and unlearn what you have learned.

The main issue I have with git is that you can check something back in over the top of something else and lose someone else's changes if comms aren't perfect.

And this I suspect is why I'm having issues. It's not just a MS source control tool background either, most (if not all) of the non-Git repositories I've used have worked pretty much the same way.