It’s probably my memory playing tricks and svn was indeed a short term endeavor.
From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control
31–40 of 67 posts
Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control
#32Most surprising thing from this article is that svn’s reign was only two years. I vividly remember using it for much longer than that, but at the same time, adopting git almost as soon as it arrived. It’s probably my memory playing tricks and svn was indeed a short term endeavor.
Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control
#33I use Subversion w/o a server too. You can have your repositories locally (file:///Path/to/repository). All my own (single man) projects are in local SVN repositories. For my use case git is just too much extra friction, and I still love to have my one single unique global revisions number that is linearly increasing with each commit. :)
Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control
#34I use Subversion w/o a server too. You can have your repositories locally (file:///Path/to/repository). All my own (single man) projects are in local SVN repositories. For my use case git is just too much extra friction, and I still love to have my one single unique global revisions number that is linearly increasing with each commit. :)
I loved the simple increasing numbers of Subversion. This was better then CVS "ad-hoc" versioning and also far better then git's hashes. Single numbers are easy for humans. I would love git would make it possible to work that way (there is one way: `git describe` can show something like "v1.0.4-14-g2414721" which means "14 commits ahead of tag v1.0.4".)
Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control
#35Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control
#36Most surprising thing from this article is that svn’s reign was only two years. I vividly remember using it for much longer than that, but at the same time, adopting git almost as soon as it arrived. It’s probably my memory playing tricks and svn was indeed a short term endeavor.
svn was absolutely in common use for a lot more than 2 years. I would totally believe that cvs was still in wider use though as there was sooo much legacy software hosted on it.
Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control
#37I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Atlassian had stuck with Mercurial support on Bitbucket - I don't think they can pretend that switching to git did very much for them. I love(d) Mercurial, and particularly TortoiseHg integration on Windows.
but thing is, aren't coding agents tunned for git based workflows? many agents use git trees right?
so it's unlikely that any git alternative will pickup from here?
Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control
#38Web design tip: don't have animations within a short distance of text, as human eyes evolved to follow the flashiest/fastest-moving thing around, which makes such text literally illegible to many of us. This particular site takes the cake in that regard by animating the whole page background.
True, but the site is called Evil Genius Labs for a reason. And it's not too hard to switch off, there's a clear prompt in the bottom right corner. (Didn't try mobile.)
Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control
#39Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control
#40Web design tip: don't have animations within a short distance of text, as human eyes evolved to follow the flashiest/fastest-moving thing around, which makes such text literally illegible to many of us. This particular site takes the cake in that regard by animating the whole page background.