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

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: Version control without Git

#51

Post by MikeTheGreat »

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…

    > I find that less experienced developers are often less 
    > than strong when it comes to basic “file ops” now days. 
    > I blame IDEs, black box build tools, etc.
Also phones / tablets. Those things do an amazing job of hiding the underlying files from users so nowadays you can use a computer (phone/tablet) without ever needing to even think about files.

And you know what else is wrong about tablets? Well, let me tell you, - wait, hold on, I gotta go shake my cane at some kids on my lawn :)

Re: Version control without Git

#52

Post by smcameron »

mapolone wrote: post #20

A long time ago before git I've casually run into quilt[1]. Not really immediate but if you don't like git may be nice to use. On IETF[2] there's a quick tutorial too. [1] http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt [2] https://tools.ietf.org/doc/quilt/quilt.html

And if you like both quilt and git, then there's stgit https://stacked-git.github.io/

Re: Version control without Git

#55

Post by martinflack »

pfdietz wrote: post #15
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.

File versioning was in BBN's TENEX, which evolved into TOPS-20 ("TWENEX") for DEC's DECSYSTEM 20 computers. File versioning is also part of pathnames in Common Lisp, although it (the versioning, not Common Lisp) is really a fossil at this point.

I always wondered if Common Lisp pathname versioning could be leveraged intentionally when pointing at files in a git repo, to reference older versions of that filename. (And whether that gives any utility...)

Re: Version control without Git

#56

Post by pfdietz »

martinflack wrote: post #55
pfdietz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

File versioning was in BBN's TENEX, which evolved into TOPS-20 ("TWENEX") for DEC's DECSYSTEM 20 computers. File versioning is also part of pathnames in Common Lisp, although it (the versioning, not Common Lisp) is really a fossil at this point.

I always wondered if Common Lisp pathname versioning could be leveraged intentionally when pointing at files in a git repo, to reference older versions of that filename. (And whether that gives any utility...)

You'd have to violate the standard a bit (version is a positive integer and :newest refers to the largest such in the file system). But I don't know that anyone uses it these days, so maybe that's ok.

Re: Version control without Git

#57

Post by dspillett »

lucb1e wrote: post #49
dspillett wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Perhaps here it needs a better title. In the actual page the short description comes before that heading.

Not sure what the best answer would be, use the longer text (too long), keep the first significant heading as title (some like yourself find this misleading), or make something up that fits (some may complain of editorialising or just that they think the alternative title is itself wrong in some way).

Or you could look, see it isn't what you want/expect, and move on. It is close enough IMO, not exactly deliberately vague and/or misleading click-bait.

Re: Version control without Git

#58

Post by chousuke »

rrauenza wrote: post #48
edoceo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

diff and patch feel like tools that have existed forever. I feels weird to think that someone wrote them instead of them just manifesting fully formed with the first version of UNIX.

Re: Version control without Git

#59

Post by chousuke »

TomMasz wrote: post #24

There's no question git is overkill for individual projects but it doesn't take long to learn the add/commit/push commands you'll most often use. But there's nothing wrong with wanting to build your own tools.

Overkill? Git is not overkill for a single file.

If it's text and you edit it, use git.

Re: Version control without Git

#60

Post by edoceo »

chousuke wrote: post #58
rrauenza wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

diff and patch feel like tools that have existed forever. I feels weird to think that someone wrote them instead of them just manifesting fully formed with the first version of UNIX.

In 1000 years the religion is that Larry Wall invented the computer in three days.
Post reply on HN