Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Version control without Git

itoshkov.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: Version control without Git

#41

Post by allannienhuis »

recursive wrote: post #33
ihusasmiis wrote: post #9

I can't believe people spent time doing this and they eventually published it.

So how can you explain the fact that it clearly exists then?

"I can't believe" isn't meant to be taken literally. It is a way of saying "I am astounded".

Re: Version control without Git

#44

Post by edoceo »

ogogmad wrote: post #37
travisgriggs wrote: post #36

I thought this was cute. I (mostly?) “get” git. At least all of what was shown was formerly known to me. I would have added a section about how keeping the commit numbers straight is a a pain and then demonstrated how we could just index them with a hash (md5sum or similar). I thought about sharing this tutorial(?) with some of my “git is kinda fuzzy” colleagues, but I realized that they often seem fuzzy in the basic…

The use of `diff` and `patch` to express merge is something interesting that I only learned from reading this article.

Wow! Ok, in like 199x and before, folks were sharing fixes by posting diff/patch files on like Usenet and stuff. It was wild. After CVS, SVN now on git, I mean, I have nostalgia but I don't miss it.

Re: Version control without Git

#45

Post by harryvederci »

allannienhuis wrote: post #41
recursive wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how can you explain the fact that it clearly exists then?

"I can't believe" isn't meant to be taken literally. It is a way of saying "I am astounded".

I am astounded that you actually explained this.

Re: Version control without Git

#46

Post by smcameron »

zoomablemind wrote: post #38
KingOfCoders wrote: post #13

Coming from RCS, CVS, SVN to Git, git is a game changer - yes everyone knows that. But what was astonishing me most was the version system build into the VMS OS file system.

> ...version system build into the VMS OS file system. That was more of "versioning" than "version control" system. It simply automated the sequential numbering of the saved instances of a file. The versions were not deltas, just normal files, the version number being part of file specification: name.ext;ver As much as one can do with versions was diff, purge and file operations, basically, no change annotation or hi…

CVS was not of the exclusive-check-out/check-in kind, it would merge by default on "cvs update", this was one of the main differences between it and RCS or sccs. The other main difference was it had a network protocol and didn't rely on the filesystem for sharing (e.g. NFS and the like). It was probably this 2nd difference that enabled it, (and subversion), to overtake RCS and sccs in the 90s.

Re: Version control without Git

#47

Post by y4mi »

edoceo wrote: post #44
ogogmad wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The use of `diff` and `patch` to express merge is something interesting that I only learned from reading this article.

Wow! Ok, in like 199x and before, folks were sharing fixes by posting diff/patch files on like Usenet and stuff. It was wild. After CVS, SVN now on git, I mean, I have nostalgia but I don't miss it.

While it's admittedly rare, this workflow continues to exist to date. The Linux kernel development comes to mind as an obvious example.

Re: Version control without Git

#48

Post by rrauenza »

edoceo wrote: post #44
ogogmad wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The use of `diff` and `patch` to express merge is something interesting that I only learned from reading this article.

Wow! Ok, in like 199x and before, folks were sharing fixes by posting diff/patch files on like Usenet and stuff. It was wild. After CVS, SVN now on git, I mean, I have nostalgia but I don't miss it.

Larry Wall is often most known for Perl, but his contribution of the patch tool is underrated.

Re: Version control without Git

#49

Post by lucb1e »

dspillett wrote: post #16
_hilro wrote: post #6

Title is horribly incorrect. Simulating git would be more appropriate. I expected this to be a look at other version control systems around today. It's yet another 'let's recreate git from scratch, kinda' post.

> I expected... In fairness, it very clearly describes what it is doing in the initial lines: “In this tutorial I’ll try to describe how git works”. So it isn't intending to suggest an alternative for git, but just to show what git does for you and, to an extent, how.

Then why do we have titles at all if people need to read the "initial lines" to know what it's about? I don't see how that's a reason not to just improve the title. Perhaps the problem was that I also felt like this was not what I expected.
Post reply on HN