8 Apr
2015
8 Apr
'15
12:45 a.m.
The world moving to Git and GitHub
Why every time I see discussion about why Git is bad I see these two
together? Each of them is very different beast, not mentioning that GitHub
can be easily replaced for Bitbucket, Gitlab or other in-house solutions
and universal-ish trackers (e.g. Redmine).
Early decisions are the most costly ones, so if we can
choose any DVCS to
work with, would be nice to consider extra options besides git.
Certainly locking ourselves out of options would be bad idea, but I don't
think that is happening. Git gets the most manpower, because most people
know it.
(for example our bosses in the work environments
choosing git because...
well... everybody else is doing it).
I am curious… if you already use alternative language like Smalltalk, does
boss really have a say in choosing VCS?
If that's the direction the project will take,
please make Git as
invisible as possible, I wouldn't like to start to think in pulls, pushes,
blames, fetchs, patchs, stashs, bisects and all that stuff.
Speaking of blames, does current Monticello / STHub even support such
thing? I've struggled it many times when I was trying to figure out when
and why certain line appeared in code. I can do that with git trivially.
Something like choose the repository. Sync local with
remote, like in
Monticello/Fossil will be ideal, not because is what we have now, but
because is something with the same smoothness while can open the door to
some advantages of DVCS without the extra complexity of Git.
From what I understood about Fossil syncing, such behavior can be achieved
with git
hooks, arguably hooks are cheating and messy.
There is also an effort to produce application catalog. Would it be not
easier to do
this catalog if we were all using github?
I don't think this would be a good move to rely solely on github. I like