The first time I tried to use git, I shredded my repo trying to revert an edited file.
Things I just don't like about Git
11–20 of 118 posts
Re: Things I just don't like about Git
#12Are there other free (like payment) alternatives to git?
The only other one I know of that can be used for large files is https://www.plasticscm.com/ .
Re: Things I just don't like about Git
#13Yep, ran into the "don't change your name" edge case. I have the choice of rewriting history and coordinating that amongst team members, dealing with it, or switching companies and never working on the project again.
So far, I just deal with it, even though it chips away at my soul each time it comes up.
Re: Things I just don't like about Git
#14I wish git would stash changes when I checkout uncommitted code
You can make this happen with a git alias[1].
Re: Things I just don't like about Git
#15I wish git would stash changes when I checkout uncommitted code
[deleted]
Re: Things I just don't like about Git
#16Are there other free (like payment) alternatives to git? The only other one I know of that can be used for large files is https://www.plasticscm.com/ .
maybe fossil[0]? Not sure about `large files` (and in fact I went to comment to ask about anyone using it 'in production' when I saw your comment)
[0]: https://www.fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki
Re: Things I just don't like about Git
#17Are there other free (like payment) alternatives to git? The only other one I know of that can be used for large files is https://www.plasticscm.com/ .
Mercurial is still actively developed.
Re: Things I just don't like about Git
#18I love these posts. I bookmark all of them. I feel strongly that VCS's could have much better UX and reliability. I'm trying to design one myself instead of implementing it in a weekend. (Though I do understand the constraints Linus was under when he made Git.) I'd love to hear more about what people hate about Git.
Back in a day, late 00s, early 10s, Git had alternatives. - Bazaar - Mercurial (Hg) Both had superior user experience compared to git, including command line and GUIs. They were not as fast, but no slow either if you came from Subversion world. They were not as flexible, but still very very flexible. What caused Git to win was not rants of Linus Tolvards, but Github. Github gave Git a semi-understandable web user int…
BitBucket no longer supports Mercurial, only Git.
Thankfully, SourceHut does support Mercurial (and, IIRC, it also supports Fossil).
Re: Things I just don't like about Git
#19I wrote my company's git wrapper. It was meant to standardize our workflow and to be communal memory for every lesson learned and sharpened edge shaved.
It's now 6000 lines of bash.
(Ok, I'm a little proud of it. I'll open source it as soon as I rewrite it in Python.)
Re: Things I just don't like about Git
#20https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki
git doesn't suck. It's the best possible version control system in the context where it was produced, i.e. the Linux Kernel, i.e. an ultra large bazaar style project with hundreds of developers gifted at getting the low level details right.
It was not however designed for the kind of projects I work on, more Cathedral style, a few people who know and trust each other, where learnability, usability, and just not getting in the way are important factors.
The SQLite people have a concurrent to git called fossil. I found their description of why they started and maintain the project incredibly interesting