[QUOTE=neos300;32376856]Git has a central server, but you clone the servers repository to your computer, and commit to that, than sync that to the central server.[/QUOTE]
While Git defines intra-repository operations, you don't have to use them; Git works fine with just a single repository. It's common to use remote servers with Git, but there's nothing particularly "central" about them, they're just repositories exactly like your local one.
[QUOTE=neos300;32376856]SVN uses numbers (ie r1, r105, r142319843124321) to mark revisions, and they go in order.
Git uses weird hash tags.[/QUOTE]
Wow, that's terribly biased of you, good to see you didn't bother doing any research either.
Git uses SHA hashes because commits are not ordered. A commit can have multiple named references to it (branches, tags etc) and multiple parent commits.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=garry;32377038]TortoiseGIT still uses the ass backwards Cygwin stuff IIRC. It isn't so much a windows version of GIT, as a Linux emulator running GIT.[/QUOTE]
MsysGit still doesn't use Cygwin and Git is still not an acronym.
I'm using Git as SVN has continuously proven to be entirely unreliable for repos with more than one developer. TortoiseGit may be kinda tough to work with but once you get it going it's as simple as TortoiseSVN to use, with all it's context menu goodies and even some new features.
That and GitHub is just blissful.
On a side note, when working with Git, you really shouldn't be using a GUI.
[QUOTE=Overv;32390393]On a side note, when working with Git, you really shouldn't be using a GUI.[/QUOTE]
Care to explain why?
A lot of times a GUI will slow down your progress with Git. It may be nice to visualize branches and commits, but the amount of options Git offers just doesn't suit a GUI. Using a GUI essentially dumbs down the process and takes away a substantial amount of options and flow.
[QUOTE=Overv;32392992]A lot of times a GUI will slow down your progress with Git. It may be nice to visualize branches and commits, but the amount of options Git offers just doesn't suit a GUI. Using a GUI essentially dumbs down the process and takes away a substantial amount of options and flow.[/QUOTE]
What options do you legitimately need to use in variance most of the time? I made a change, I find it to be stable in tests, and I want to push it to a central location. Done.
In the time it would take me to merge with one or two clicks, I'd either have to type out my explicit demands, or write scripts/batch files to handle it for me.
In what manner is having so many options that you shouldn't be using a "dumbed down" version of an interface a good thing? GUIs serve to speed up interaction and make that interaction intuitive.
I prefer mercurial, it's really simple to use, and it works on many platforms.
[QUOTE=Overv;32392992]A lot of times a GUI will slow down your progress with Git. It may be nice to visualize branches and commits, but the amount of options Git offers just doesn't suit a GUI. Using a GUI essentially dumbs down the process and takes away a substantial amount of options and flow.[/QUOTE]
Well maybe for commit jobs a GUI would be fine (I don't use Git or even SVN all that much so I'm not an ~expert~), but for advanced shit CLI would be the best.
of course I tend to prefer CLI for things anyway (even in video games, I prefer to quit using developer consoles) so that probably makes me even less credible on such things
I'm using git on Linux. As previously mentioned, support sucks on Windows, and I agree. So I'm using Linux instead, since I'll be developing cross-platform only anyway, and I love Linux :D
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
