81–90 of 92 posts
I adopted mercurial when git was "painful" to use. It seems as though this has changed, but I see no compelling reason to switch just because all the Rails kids think git's cool right now.
Remote work especially is bonkers. Push/pull? Easy. Add/Delete remote branch? Off to google for me...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have this feeling too. However, I've just started using git, and one nice thing is the sense of closure when you "commit" something, it's a milestone, a bit like a release. It's also nice to have a log of changes, with a short comment about each one. But I haven't had any actual advantage from it so far; and any nervousness about playing around with files has shifted across to nervousness about playing around with…
" I find doing anything to the repository (reverting, branching etc) terrifying, because I don't really understand what it's going to do, and I could lose everything." Like many things in the software world, the more you know, the better off you are!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only a little bit faster than mercurial, and the size of the repository is larger.
I have a 250gb hard disk, and no spare minutes per day.
I don't think anybody would suggest that size of repository matters for the number of bytes involved. There are obvious side effects of a large repository.
I feel like I need something sometimes but most of the tools above seem a bit complicated and not very intuitive.
Is it worth learning a version control system for small personal projects, say 10 source-files and 5-10 different versions? I feel like I need something sometimes but most of the tools above seem a bit complicated and not very intuitive.
How often do you do a bigger change, then realize you still need some pieces of the previous version? Version diff to the rescue!
None. From where I stand, it seems like extra management duty, for marginal benefits.
Have you tried it? Version control makes you braver in deleting and rewriting.
I do AI, maybe that's the difference. Honestly, apart from utils.lisp, I wouldn't cry much if I suddenly lost all my files. Code is trivial, the important point is in the experience / insights.
I'll try it some day for sure. It's just not that appealing. It was the same with Emacs.
I adopted mercurial when git was "painful" to use. It seems as though this has changed, but I see no compelling reason to switch just because all the Rails kids think git's cool right now.
all the Rails kids think git's cool right now A stopped clock is right twice a day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used mercurial briefly and found it to be much, much slower compared to git.
Under what OS, hardware platform, filesystem, project size, etc.? Not knee-jerk arguing, genuinely curious. When I compared them on Windows and OpenBSD, I never had a speed difference of more than about 5% (not counting git db repacking), even with a project that had 40,000+ commits, 10+ very active branches, and about 2 GB of code + data.
It's nowhere near an actual analysis, just my experience in my limited use (and probably influenced quite a bit by things that I've heard).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under what OS, hardware platform, filesystem, project size, etc.? Not knee-jerk arguing, genuinely curious. When I compared them on Windows and OpenBSD, I never had a speed difference of more than about 5% (not counting git db repacking), even with a project that had 40,000+ commits, 10+ very active branches, and about 2 GB of code + data.
Admittedly it was probably either the environment or the remote server causing the problem. I was running it under Cygwin on Vista, and it was a fairly huge project. I was running git under the same environment for the same thing (with a different remote origin), and even then I noticed git was much more snappy. It's nowhere near an actual analysis, just my experience in my limited use (and probably influenced quite…
(I was using an actual timer when I compared them.)