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

Simple Revision Control

catb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 179 posts

Re: Simple Revision Control

#81

Post by fetbaffe »

pothibo wrote: post #52
pothibo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link. He actually compares homosexual with pedophiles. I want to have absolutely nothing to do with such a degenerate.

For those of you brave souls who downvote me. I'm wondering which part of my statement you disagree with. - You think homosexual are pedophiles? - It's not important what he thinks about homosexuals. You're going to support him by using his software. If he had held the same hate speech about women in 2014, everyone would be here talking how imbecile this guy is.

You know, the world does not consists of two opposing positions, like republicans or democrats. There could actually be other positions than those two you pointed out. One for example that this is Hacker News and not Huffington Post.

Your comment about "support him by using his software" is just silly.

Lots of creators in this world have had less than flattering opinions in different topics, but does not take away what they produced.

I can still enjoy Wagner regardless of his views on the jews. I don't have to reformat all my ReiserFS based hard drives after Reiser murdered his wife. And The Pianist by Roman Polanski is an absolute masterpiece, even though Polanski raped that poor girl.

So I evaluate SRC based on merits, not the creators.

Re: Simple Revision Control

#82

Post by icebraining »

edwintorok wrote: post #63
pothibo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those of you brave souls who downvote me. I'm wondering which part of my statement you disagree with. - You think homosexual are pedophiles? - It's not important what he thinks about homosexuals. You're going to support him by using his software. If he had held the same hate speech about women in 2014, everyone would be here talking how imbecile this guy is.

People can have different political, religious, etc. views than you, but why should that influence whether you use his software or not? Do you check the political views of all authors of each software before you decide to use it? What if those views (or your own) change over time and you disagree with them?

(ESR aside) Why not? If I believe that someone's exposed views are harmful, doesn't it make sense to avoid increasing his/her overall influence?

I mean, the fact that we're discussing ESR's views on pedophilia shows that his influence in an unrelated area (software) increases the exposure of those views. If he was just a nobody like me, would we be discussing his blog post on Catholic priests? Not likely.

Do you check the political views of all authors of each software before you decide to use it?

I sure don't, but why does that mean one should actively ignore gained knowledge?

Re: Simple Revision Control

#83

Post by gonzo »

wolfgke wrote: post #78
pothibo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those of you brave souls who downvote me. I'm wondering which part of my statement you disagree with. - You think homosexual are pedophiles? - It's not important what he thinks about homosexuals. You're going to support him by using his software. If he had held the same hate speech about women in 2014, everyone would be here talking how imbecile this guy is.

> For those of you brave souls who downvote me. I'm wondering which part of my statement you disagree with. This part: > I want to have absolutely nothing to do with such a degenerate.

ESF is degenerate.

That you choose to support him says more about you than esr, or OP.

Re: Simple Revision Control

#84

Post by mitchty »

vertex-four wrote: post #14
SwellJoe wrote: post #8

I am not entirely sure I understand why one wouldn't use git for this role. If you don't need a remote git repository, you don't need to use one, and git will be available everywhere. Certainly many production machines will tend to have it for deployment of applications across multiple machines. What are some use cases that don't work with git (which is probably already available on the system)? And why wouldn't git…

The point is managing single files, not directories. Want to version control your ~/.bashrc, for example? Or a single document? You can do that without having to move the file into its own directory in some hackish way.

You can always just set GIT_REPO_DIR to a bare/remote git repo and not have to move crap around if you don't want to.

git is a bit more flexible than how its normally used.

Re: Simple Revision Control

#85

Post by edwintorok »

icebraining wrote: post #82
edwintorok wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can have different political, religious, etc. views than you, but why should that influence whether you use his software or not? Do you check the political views of all authors of each software before you decide to use it? What if those views (or your own) change over time and you disagree with them?

(ESR aside) Why not? If I believe that someone's exposed views are harmful, doesn't it make sense to avoid increasing his/her overall influence? I mean, the fact that we're discussing ESR's views on pedophilia shows that his influence in an unrelated area (software) increases the exposure of those views. If he was just a nobody like me, would we be discussing his blog post on Catholic priests? Not likely. Do you chec…

First of all it would take too much time to find out all the authors of all the software that I routinely use, and then keep up with what their current views are on various topics.

But I think the main reason is that most software has more than one author, and it would be unfair to judge the usefulness of that software based on the (non-technical) views of just one of its authors.

Your reasoning would apply only for single-author software, and TBH I would consider those pet-projects anyway, and I don't think the original author would care much whether you use it or not.

Edit: about gained knowledge: I think you could apply this if you compare multiple competing solutions, one deciding factor could be the author's thoughts on various topics. Just like how a company's attitude towards various topics might be influencing your purchasing decision: for example Nvidia doesn't support open-source drivers, hence I don't buy Nvidia when choosing a graphics card.

But again for me those are all technical reasons, I wouldn't factor an author's/company's political views into that decision, unless it was something really horrible.

Re: Simple Revision Control

#86

Post by xixixao »

leoc wrote: post #29
mrb wrote: post #22

He claims he did not use Mercurial because (a) it stores the history in binary blobs, (b) it does not have sequential revision numbers, and (c) its CLI syntax is ugly, see [1]. Unfortunately he is wrong about (b) and (c). Mercurial assigns automatic sequential revision numbers (perfect for a single non-distributed repo) and its CLI syntax is so neat that this is the reason I do use it a lot to track changes to single…

From TFA: > 4. Modern CLI user-interface. Commands familiar to Subversion, Hg, Git users. Doesn't seem that he's down on Mercurial's syntax.

[Modern CLI user-interface.] [Commands familiar to Subversion, Hg, Git users.]

Those two just make up an oxymoron for me.

Re: Simple Revision Control

#87

Post by fetbaffe »

awalton wrote: post #26

I think in a strange way, this tool is actually not a terrible idea. Git is not a configuration management tool, no matter how hard people try to shoe-horn it into that role. A simpler Git designed for configuration management is indeed a good idea. Unfortunately, I think the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. For one, not including the committer is an important flaw. If you're only managing your own system's…

It is a great idea. Git is just too much of an hassle when you only have one file of TODOs, a tiny hack or what not. Why bother with checksums when an incremental integer helps me memorize what revision I'm on?

However as others has pointed out, maybe the dependency on rcs was not the best choice.

Re: Simple Revision Control

#88

Post by icebraining »

fetbaffe wrote: post #81
pothibo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those of you brave souls who downvote me. I'm wondering which part of my statement you disagree with. - You think homosexual are pedophiles? - It's not important what he thinks about homosexuals. You're going to support him by using his software. If he had held the same hate speech about women in 2014, everyone would be here talking how imbecile this guy is.

You know, the world does not consists of two opposing positions, like republicans or democrats. There could actually be other positions than those two you pointed out. One for example that this is Hacker News and not Huffington Post. Your comment about "support him by using his software" is just silly. Lots of creators in this world have had less than flattering opinions in different topics, but does not take away wh…

In general, I agree. The question is whether you're helping promote the "bad parts" by promoting the good ones. I mean, why are we reading and discussing ERS's views on Catholic priests if not because many people like his software?

I don't think it's fair to dismiss it as silly.

Re: Simple Revision Control

#89

Post by icebraining »

fetbaffe wrote: post #87
awalton wrote: post #26

I think in a strange way, this tool is actually not a terrible idea. Git is not a configuration management tool, no matter how hard people try to shoe-horn it into that role. A simpler Git designed for configuration management is indeed a good idea. Unfortunately, I think the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. For one, not including the committer is an important flaw. If you're only managing your own system's…

It is a great idea. Git is just too much of an hassle when you only have one file of TODOs, a tiny hack or what not. Why bother with checksums when an incremental integer helps me memorize what revision I'm on? However as others has pointed out, maybe the dependency on rcs was not the best choice.

There's life beyond git, though. Bazaar gives you incremental¹ integers and a much nicer UI.

¹ barring merges, but those shouldn't happen in these use cases

Re: Simple Revision Control

#90

Post by makmanalp »

dubfan wrote: post #65
hughw wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing un-nice about that article. It's a reasoned argument. You may disagree with its conclusion, and you can write your own refutation of it. But it has nothing to do with ESR's niceness.

This is the Internet in 2014. We don't refute controversial arguments, we scream "wow, just wow, hate speech, what a bigot", publicly shame and defame their character and derail their careers. We're enlightened now.

The comments section provides some very decent counterarguments which ESR seems to skip over. I have to say, I'm a bit surprised. I'd read his writings on open source and I thought they were always interesting if not fully convincing, but I never knew this side of him and I'm not too impressed.
Post reply on HN