Then you're doing it wrong. You don't commit half of the files you want to push... you only commit the files you want to push, and then if you want to commit the others but not push them then you commit those separately, and only push the commit that you wanted to get to other repositories.
However, I do admit that it seems that Git is harder to use than SVN, from my experience with working with a team of about 10 developers who were new to Git but not SVN: they have failed at doing what shouldn't be hard. I've been called upon literally over a dozen times to help developers when they can't figure out how to do what they need to do with Git, and especially how they have to fix a mistake that they've made.
I wonder if it is because Git is inherently harder to use (the command line interface certainly sucks vs. a GUI), or if it is just a problem with people trying to incorrectly use Git in the the way that CVS/SVN works.
Your cite branches in separate folders as a superior feature? Subversion has that crap and it's messy.
High five brah! I hated that shit when I had to use SVN.
You also mention "revision numbers" as a feature. Who gives a crap about revision numbers?
As a person who has professionally used Git (and likes it) in many repositories, both large and small, I miss revision numbers. When I e-mail my colleagues about commits (i.e. revisions in another syntax), it is annoying to communicate it: I have to copy and paste the entire commit metadata (name, author, date-time, and SHA) in order to reflect it properly. I would much rather say "15.1" or "newfeaturebranch.3".
It also has been a problem when using the "Blame..." tool to track down why something was changed, as you have to do a double-lookup to find the SHA of the changed line and then the commit of the SHA. Well, my bad because really you'd have to do the same thing with a revision number, but trust me... I'd rather be working with revision numbers than SHAs because it would be easy to know that this line was changed because of "newfeaturebranch" rather than e93f02a09f9fe092a039a923.
Obviously, we don't need revision numbers... but boy would I love to have them.
Well of course Git has a concept of branches, but it only lets you access one at a time. What I find frustrating about this (besides the educational overhead of having to learn how to switch branches, and figure out which ones are being pushed and to where) is the fact that there is no URL for identifying a particular branch in Git -- URLs identify repositories, and then branches are identified by additional syntax I still haven't grokked fully.
I tend think the argument "I haven't learned it yet" isn't a good argument. Also, URLs identifying branches is syntactic sugar which doesn't affect the underlying system of the repository. The idea of only accessing one at a time has merit, but if you need that (like I do sometimes) you simply create two workspaces or checkout the files to a separate folder, both of which end up having the same effect as the Bazaar solution.
When do you ever use relative paths that go up outside the current branch into another? If you ever did that (say, a file in 'trunk' refers to "../branch"), then it would break in Git anyway, where you can't refer to another branch. I think this is a non-argument. Besides, common practice in Bazaar is to have all the branches in one directory, and also have "trunk" in the same directory (it's just another branch, that happens to be called "trunk").
This happened to me at a previous company using SVN. It had to do with the fact that a build system built several projects. I don't remember why... I suppose they were separate directories which had individual trunk/branch/tag directories (module1/trunk and module2/trunk). If you tried to build a tag or branch, it was in one directory up past trunk (i.e. module1/trunk/project vs module1/tag/v1/project). You literally had to copy the subdirectory to the parent directory for it to build properly.
But anyways, this point wasn't BZR vs Git vs SVN, it was that I simply don't think having separate directories for tags/branches is a good idea due to the way it affects the underlying existing "metadata" on the file system, which is directory paths. On top of that, I hated having to take up so much damn space on the drive if I wanted the entire repository (which never actually happened when I was dealing with SVN, because it was too hard).
Another important point: you say that "trunk vs merged" in Bazaar is equivalent to Git, but it isn't.
I don't think I said that, and anyways I don't think that.
Looking back at that commit, all you see is a commit called 0f3bc3df with two parents: 83c7ac39 and e337cb8a: you can't say which of those two parents was the previous "stable" version and which was from the feature branch
This is wrong. One can. The commit 83c7 and the commits e337 both would clearly state which tags are their parents: 83c7 would say "branch1" and e337 would say "release1.5", for example.
So yes, Git does support the concept of a master branch and other branches, but it doesn't remember, historically, which commits came from where, and thus is a poorer data structure than Bazaar's.
It does know where commits come from. The only reason the user wouldn't know is if the branches weren't labelled (i.e. tagged). In my own professional experience (admittedly only the course of 2 years and a handful of Git repositories, two of which was very large), this has never happened. I guess that in Bazaar, the mere creation of a branch makes the branch automatically labelled at its origin. However, the end result of my experience in Git is that branches are also labelled.
This all being said, I am not saying Git is better than Bazaar at all. I definitely don't think Git is the end-all solution for VCS by any means, and it does have its share of problems. Most of my comments above are opinions, and I would think myself very rude if I said to you or anyone that such opinions are "right" instead of "what I prefer".
I hear you. I, almost daily, use three different tools on my Windows box for Git: GitExtensions, TortoiseGit, and the command line. I guess I occasionally use the Git+ GUI that comes with the binaries occasionally too, but only for 1 or 2 reasons that happen only once every month or two. Each of those tools can do something better than the other, and each of them also does something worse than the other.
On top of that, I work with Mac users on my team, and they only use the command line for most operations as the tools aren't available for their systems. And they tend to fuck up plenty... I don't think those guys are dumb, but I don't think they know Git as well as I do and the concepts aren't obvious and the command line doesn't make many things obvious.
Oh, and I'd like to take an off-topic moment to point out why I think *nix people are horrible user interface designers: because all *nix command line interfaces are AWFUL. They aren't easy to use, they aren't obvious, they change from one point to the next, and lots of other reasons. Git's command line has this too. Many times I hear *nix people counter with the fact that you have to be smart to use them and if you don't get it you're stupid or not as good as me. Bah! What it means is that the user interfaces suck.
Git could use revision numbers
on
The Rise of Git
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Since the idea behind Git is that since it is distributed, and doesn't need a master repository, I guess it didn't make sense to have revision numbers when it was created (for the Linux kernel). This is because when two people make separate revisions at the same time on their local repositories, a linear revision number would conflict.
However, I've never actually used any Git project/repository which didn't have a master repository. This is both local repositories for my own projects on my Dropbox folder, and professional repositories I've used (Android and the various repositories at the company I work at), And especially at work, it has been annoying that we didn't have revision numbers.
I wish Git would get a new feature added: the ability to assign a repository as the "master" repository, and in turn the ability for the master repository to assign revision numbers. If people are wondering how that would work considering people make commits on their local repository and then push them to the master causing possible conflicts, the revision numbers wouldn't get assigned until they hit the master branch and they also split it up for merges:
5
/ \ 4.1 4.2
\ /
3 (or something similar to the above)
Lots of people who use an alternative VCS like Mercurial, Bazaar, etc., bitch about Git because the lack of revision numbers. To those who are unfamiliar, each commit in Git has a SHA1 hash which is used as an identifier instead of a revision numbers. Unfortunately, they are very unwieldy to communicate to others. At work we always use the name and date-time instead, but that has problems as it doesn't convey the branch for instances when it matters.
Re:because the others still suck
on
The Rise of Git
·
· Score: 1
I checked out the full repository of an open source project I have been tinkering with in both SVN and Git (libgdx). The SVN was MUCH larger than the Git repository on my hard drive (i think 33% more, but I can't remember). There is something else one should realize when dealing with SVN... by having more files, you are by definition taking greater than or equal to the space of less files of the same length, due to file sectors (for example, a 1 byte file takes up a whole file sector, which is 4KB on my hard drive).
On top of that, it's extremely annoying to have file duplicates in your directory. I hate searching SVN folders and importing SVN projects into Eclipse (I know, I know, you can fix the duplicate file problem, but it's still annoying).
It seems like just about every argument in favour of Git could be equally applied to any other DVCS. On top of that, the only thing it has going for it is a larger community (and being the creation of Torvalds).
So, given that statement, Git is better than any other DVCS.:)
I've argued to wit's end that Bazaar is superior to Git in a multitude of ways (branches as separate file-system directories,... explicit notion of a 'trunk' versus merged branches)
Half of your ideas really ARE better; for example a revision number is superior to a SHA not just in an opinion, but in a quantifiable way. However, branches in separate file-system directories and trunk vs merged is a superfluous way of describing the same concept, which is branches, and Git (and others) still maintains that concept.
I will argue, with both reason and experience, that separate directories for branches/trunks/tags are BAD. For example, they take up a linearly larger amount of space on your local storage media when checking everything out. Another example is that build systems can be messed up by differing directories... if you have trunk/ and branch/1 you have different levels of directories so ".." relative paths are screwed.
Having branches and a trunk is good, and Git fully supports it.
I personally believe that schools should inform children so that when they grow up they are able to make decisions on thier own... brainwashing for or against creationism or evolutionism (notice that I call neither of them science as they are belief systems.... sure you can argue that evolution has basis in science however the odds IMO are stacked against it and there are very large gaps in the theory where you just have to believe things are one way or the other.... so I personally can't count it as scientific fact)
Here's where your otherwise reasonable comment goes awry. The Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution are not belief systems. They are a collection of concepts and laws and facts that are grouped together to be called a Scientific Theory. They require no "belief". You are certainly welcome to make improvements to the various observed facts by data points in both Scientific Theories. In fact, that's what scientists do on a daily basis. You a certainly welcome to "not believe" the hundreds of thousands of facts and observations and what not, in the same way you are welcome to "not believe" that the gravitational field at the earth's surface is 9.81 m/s2... but such a fact is not changed by belief.
I personally believe that schools should inform children so that when they grow up they are able to make decisions on thier own... brainwashing for or against...
If you want to call teaching science as "brainwashing", then you are doing a disservice to science and your comment above shows your misinformed idea of what science actually is. Science is a process and it is based on the way we can come to conclusions based on observations and tests. We teach lots of things in science classes because millions of others have already done billions of existing experiments to come to the conclusions that millions have confirmed in a scientific process. By saying "let children make their decisions on their own" you are implying that they should either A. Repeat all scientific experiments themselves (not bad, but impossible for a single human in a lifetime) or B. Not respect the validity of the scientific process (horrible, horrible... we should not let children "believe" that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation is how flies are birthed from rotting meat).
so I personally can't count it as scientific fact)
Once again, the scientific theories of gravity and evolution are not facts, they are collections of hundreds of thousands of facts, data points, observations, principles, etc.
I may not agree with their unusual cultures, but it's THEIR choice how they run themselves (and none of my business).
I strongly believe that people should be left alone and let them choose how they run themselves, as long as it doesn't hurt others. However, choosing to teach creationism or evolution in schools very much so affects others. It certainly wouldn't matter at their own private home, but it does matter when you're making the choice for other families by fiat of an 8-person council vote.
Off topic, wtf is going on with the textareas on slashdot? Their performance is horrific on mobile devices - I had to compose this in my email client - as the cursor just doesn't work.
I agree! WTF, I would think Slashdot would have a high enough caliber of engineers that could have a simple working textarea for as many browsers as possible. The focus constantly gets swallowed in Chrome, and sometimes you can't paste text in the textareas either.
Umm, you think a sampling of beauty pageant contestants is an informative sampling of US public opinion? They aren't exactly average Americans.
Although, I'll grant you this... those contestants are trained to try to make an appealing answer to a general American audience. So one could read something into the fact that how they answer is trying to reflect as many American's opinions as possible. But, given that 80% of them thought that the theory of evolution was a "theory" as in "conjecture" and not as in "scientific theory", I don't think they were aptly equipped to perform a sample.
Well, you know what I meant, I hope. One thing that scares the shit out of me is that if I weren't allowed to visit my partner while he lay dying in the hospital. Or if I were driving through Arkansas with my children and something happened to where my family was not considered a family in that state and they took them away from me. I don't care if you call those things rights or not... these things are something that I sincerely am scared about and I feel like as an American, a country where none of its citizens seems to describe it without the word "freedom", I shouldn't have to worry about.
As far as the awful stories about children being taken away from their families, that is awful, truly awful. However, I don't see that those stories are really a "party" issue (Democrats, Republicans, etc.) Those are abuses and failings of government. And I don't thing these awful stories you mention changes anything I've said, in reference to Republicans far and away being more dangerous to my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness than Democrats.
That is an interesting assessment. A bit too simple, but pretty good for two sentences. I don't think Obama has really made that much more summary decisions from the ruling party than Bush did, though.
I do not disagree with you. I am aware that I am a "left libertarian". I certainly will care about rights especially related to my kids when we have children.
I also don't disagree with the fact that Democrats are also trying to take away my rights, such as banning home made lunches and other things such as saying what I can and can't watch on TV.
However, I reiterate my point that I hate the people who are trying to take away the certain rights I enumerated. Well, having sex and smoking weed aren't what I'm worried about. Not being able to protect myself with the law related to my homosexual partner/family is what I'm worried about, and being taken to jail for a significant portion of my life when I haven't harmed anyone is what I'm worried about.
I simply can't hate Democrats as much for the rights they take away, because being denied your life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness is by far and away more dangerous from Republicans than Democrats to me.
I specifically described what I hate. I did not say people who think differently that me. I specifically described the various rights that people are trying to take or have already taken from me. I did not write a 20 page long discussion clarifying everything, it was quite condensed, but if it matters, I do not hate Republicans, especially since half of my friends and half of my family are Republicans. I will reiterate, though, that I hate people who try to prevent me from having the same rights as heterosexuals such as the ability to visit my partner in the hospital.
If you think "tolerance" is defined as accepting people who take your rights away then you are wrong... tolerance does not have to extend to people who fuck you over. For example, if someone borrows your lawnmower and does not return it, you are not being intolerant by demanding it be returned.
You may think that it isn't upper middle class, but it is the top 15% of Americans. If you don't like the term upper middle class, fine. But the percentage of Americans who make $115,000 a year or more is 15% of Americans, at least it was in 2005.
If inflation has brought that number down since 2005, oh well, I doubt that the percentage of Americans who started gaining $115K/year or more has significantly changed during the recession.
Go ahead. Work the numbers on inflation. And stop being a chump.
Read through the lynch-mob mentality here on slashdot, then tell me that again. And these are supposed to be educated people with a bit more common sense than the average hick. For an even more fun experience, go surf youtube - you can find hundreds if not thousands of videos of police using reasonable escalation of force in order to arrest a suspect, each of which has thousands of comments filled with vitriol, demands that the cop be executed, his family be raped, etc, etc.
I really do sympathize with a cop who has to deal with that. And I am still adamant that such comments on YouTube are by far and away no excuse for not allowing the public to record public servants.
The statements you are making are called Strawman Arguments (google it). Just because horrible comments on YouTube are made from a recording of police officers by the public don't mean that the police should be allowed to operate as public servants in private without accountability. If a person in the public abuses or threatens a cop, that is illegal and it is illegal regardless of whether or not the police are being recorded. In fact, the fact that someone is committing a crime and it is being recorded is even better if it is being recorded, because it is proof above just the officer's testimony.
As a liberal who doesn't like Republicans, I can guarantee you that every right I've ever had to worry about in my life was in danger from Republicans and not Democrats.
Close, but you don't really understand the danger. Democrats and Republicans work together to deprive us of our rights. We get parental advisory stickers on one hand and we get banning of certain media in certain situations in the other.
I stand by my original statement. Every right I've actually needed and worried about being taken away comes from Republicans not Democrats. I agree with your assessments that Democrats also try to take away various rights in the guise of "think of the children" (and other ways too). However, the core ability of my ability to exist in freedom is not in danger from Democrats raising my taxes or telling me what I can't watch on TV. When Republicans tell me I can't smoke pot in peace and tell me I can't provide proper health care to my lover, that is far and away more dangerous to my peaceful existence.
Yes, I'm also what one would call a "left libertarian" but if I had to tell a random stranger in black and white if I were a liberal or conservative, a Republican or Democrat, I would say "liberal" and "Democrat" even though those terms carry a lot of baggage I don't want or agree with.
Your methods, on the other hand, are only more likely to bring your "police state" into reality. By demonizing police, you limit their effectiveness, and you breed more crime. You also create an us-vs-them mentality which is absolute poison to the survival of a civilized society.
No. I am also accountable for my actions at work. If I fail, I get reprimanded in some fashion. In the extreme, my career would be ruined. You are arguing against police being held accountable. If 99% of police are good and doing a good job, then 99% of police shouldn't care that they are being recorded. In fact, this is why so many police departments like the TV show COPS, because it sheds a good light on what police do, and what they have to deal with. Police being recorded, if they are doing good, is a good thing for both the public and the police.
m all for holding cops accountable for their actions, but the response has to be reasonable, it has to based on common sense, and it has to be carried out by the system. Punishing them in a trial-by-media based on some blurry footage, followed by a political decision to lock them up or dismiss them..... that's wrong. Period.
So are you saying that people shouldn't be able to record police doing their jobs as public servants? Listen, I'm sympathetic to your worries that media frenzies can happen to cops doing their jobs, but that is obfuscating the issue. Media frenzies are not a good excuse to disallow the public from knowing what their public servants are doing. If a (wrong) media frenzy happens, that is not an excuse to prevent the public from knowing what the public servants do. Similarly, we allow the public to buy guns even though guns kill tens of thousands of people a year in this country, and I don't believe you would agree to prevent the public from buying guns because of that reason.
This is laughable like when Republicans say they are the party of Lincoln. The Democrat party used to be the conservative party in the South, but it switched sides during a period from the 60s to the 90s. The conservatives became Republicans and the liberals became Democrat. The Republican party used to be liberal, now it is conservative. This is why McCain had a hard time after the 2008 race in his 2010 Arizona election because his beliefs were very much aligned with the 1950s Republicans but not the 2010 Republicans. He had to make a hard swing to the right.
Indeed. During the last presidential election (Obama 2008), the national police association supported Obama, and many commentators talked about how it was ironic because most of the police in the country were Republicans, the "law and order" party.
I know I shouldn't respond to trolls, but it's late... As a liberal who doesn't like Republicans, I can guarantee you that every right I've ever had to worry about in my life was in danger from Republicans and not Democrats. You seem to think that as a liberal I have faith in the beneficence of the state. What I want is the state to protect me from others, without taking away my rights. In other words, I'd like to have gay sex and smoke pot as long as I don't fuck over anyone else, and I don't want assholes to tell me I can't do these things because I'm not hurting anyone.
As far as Democrats spending too much money and "obsession with taxes" (the latest Republican catch phrase), meh. It doesn't affect me the way Republicans claim it affects people like me. I'm a upper middle class (~115K/year) so I do pay my fair share of taxes, but the extra 3% or whatever everyone is bitching about is nothing compared to a cop pulling me over to take money from me when I haven't hurt anyone, or the government telling me I can't visit my partner in the hospital, nor catching my friends with pot and treating them as if they were bank robbers or some other high profile criminals. This is not hyperbole, this is experience. And once it really bit me in the ass... I had to pay an extra $1500 in the ONE month between jobs because the way COBRA* works, my partner had to go to the emergency room in that ONE month and the federal government would let heterosexuals keep the same benefits at the same rate as the company gives them, but NOT the same rate to domestic partnerships. Yes, an extra $1500 when it would have been an extra $0 if I were straight. I hate you motherfuckers like I hate Hitler and Stalin... you and your ilk are constantly trying to take away the freedom of others.
So fuck you, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. I love freedom and I hate Republicans for trying to take away my rights and freedoms and for God's sake not letting me live alone in peace. Don't kid yourself, asshole cops are not progressives and they are not liberal.
*COBRA is basically the law in America that allows employees who have been laid off to continue to have insurance at the same group rate as they had with the company. The company does not have to pay any money towards the monthly premiums if they paid a portion of it. In other words, the employees have to pay the full premium themselves. However, a family plan still applies even though the employee would have to pay whatever extra the company was paying. Unfortunately, domestic partnerships aren't considered families and therefore don't get to benefit from COBRA so they have to be paid as if they were individuals and not family plans.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you're doing it wrong. You don't commit half of the files you want to push... you only commit the files you want to push, and then if you want to commit the others but not push them then you commit those separately, and only push the commit that you wanted to get to other repositories.
However, I do admit that it seems that Git is harder to use than SVN, from my experience with working with a team of about 10 developers who were new to Git but not SVN: they have failed at doing what shouldn't be hard. I've been called upon literally over a dozen times to help developers when they can't figure out how to do what they need to do with Git, and especially how they have to fix a mistake that they've made.
I wonder if it is because Git is inherently harder to use (the command line interface certainly sucks vs. a GUI), or if it is just a problem with people trying to incorrectly use Git in the the way that CVS/SVN works.
Your cite branches in separate folders as a superior feature? Subversion has that crap and it's messy.
High five brah! I hated that shit when I had to use SVN.
You also mention "revision numbers" as a feature. Who gives a crap about revision numbers?
As a person who has professionally used Git (and likes it) in many repositories, both large and small, I miss revision numbers. When I e-mail my colleagues about commits (i.e. revisions in another syntax), it is annoying to communicate it: I have to copy and paste the entire commit metadata (name, author, date-time, and SHA) in order to reflect it properly. I would much rather say "15.1" or "newfeaturebranch.3".
It also has been a problem when using the "Blame..." tool to track down why something was changed, as you have to do a double-lookup to find the SHA of the changed line and then the commit of the SHA. Well, my bad because really you'd have to do the same thing with a revision number, but trust me... I'd rather be working with revision numbers than SHAs because it would be easy to know that this line was changed because of "newfeaturebranch" rather than e93f02a09f9fe092a039a923.
Obviously, we don't need revision numbers... but boy would I love to have them.
Well of course Git has a concept of branches, but it only lets you access one at a time. What I find frustrating about this (besides the educational overhead of having to learn how to switch branches, and figure out which ones are being pushed and to where) is the fact that there is no URL for identifying a particular branch in Git -- URLs identify repositories, and then branches are identified by additional syntax I still haven't grokked fully.
I tend think the argument "I haven't learned it yet" isn't a good argument. Also, URLs identifying branches is syntactic sugar which doesn't affect the underlying system of the repository. The idea of only accessing one at a time has merit, but if you need that (like I do sometimes) you simply create two workspaces or checkout the files to a separate folder, both of which end up having the same effect as the Bazaar solution.
When do you ever use relative paths that go up outside the current branch into another? If you ever did that (say, a file in 'trunk' refers to "../branch"), then it would break in Git anyway, where you can't refer to another branch. I think this is a non-argument. Besides, common practice in Bazaar is to have all the branches in one directory, and also have "trunk" in the same directory (it's just another branch, that happens to be called "trunk").
This happened to me at a previous company using SVN. It had to do with the fact that a build system built several projects. I don't remember why... I suppose they were separate directories which had individual trunk/branch/tag directories (module1/trunk and module2/trunk). If you tried to build a tag or branch, it was in one directory up past trunk (i.e. module1/trunk/project vs module1/tag/v1/project). You literally had to copy the subdirectory to the parent directory for it to build properly.
But anyways, this point wasn't BZR vs Git vs SVN, it was that I simply don't think having separate directories for tags/branches is a good idea due to the way it affects the underlying existing "metadata" on the file system, which is directory paths. On top of that, I hated having to take up so much damn space on the drive if I wanted the entire repository (which never actually happened when I was dealing with SVN, because it was too hard).
Another important point: you say that "trunk vs merged" in Bazaar is equivalent to Git, but it isn't.
I don't think I said that, and anyways I don't think that.
Looking back at that commit, all you see is a commit called 0f3bc3df with two parents: 83c7ac39 and e337cb8a: you can't say which of those two parents was the previous "stable" version and which was from the feature branch
This is wrong. One can. The commit 83c7 and the commits e337 both would clearly state which tags are their parents: 83c7 would say "branch1" and e337 would say "release1.5", for example.
So yes, Git does support the concept of a master branch and other branches, but it doesn't remember, historically, which commits came from where, and thus is a poorer data structure than Bazaar's.
It does know where commits come from. The only reason the user wouldn't know is if the branches weren't labelled (i.e. tagged). In my own professional experience (admittedly only the course of 2 years and a handful of Git repositories, two of which was very large), this has never happened. I guess that in Bazaar, the mere creation of a branch makes the branch automatically labelled at its origin. However, the end result of my experience in Git is that branches are also labelled.
This all being said, I am not saying Git is better than Bazaar at all. I definitely don't think Git is the end-all solution for VCS by any means, and it does have its share of problems. Most of my comments above are opinions, and I would think myself very rude if I said to you or anyone that such opinions are "right" instead of "what I prefer".
I hear you. I, almost daily, use three different tools on my Windows box for Git: GitExtensions, TortoiseGit, and the command line. I guess I occasionally use the Git+ GUI that comes with the binaries occasionally too, but only for 1 or 2 reasons that happen only once every month or two. Each of those tools can do something better than the other, and each of them also does something worse than the other.
On top of that, I work with Mac users on my team, and they only use the command line for most operations as the tools aren't available for their systems. And they tend to fuck up plenty... I don't think those guys are dumb, but I don't think they know Git as well as I do and the concepts aren't obvious and the command line doesn't make many things obvious.
Oh, and I'd like to take an off-topic moment to point out why I think *nix people are horrible user interface designers: because all *nix command line interfaces are AWFUL. They aren't easy to use, they aren't obvious, they change from one point to the next, and lots of other reasons. Git's command line has this too. Many times I hear *nix people counter with the fact that you have to be smart to use them and if you don't get it you're stupid or not as good as me. Bah! What it means is that the user interfaces suck.
Since the idea behind Git is that since it is distributed, and doesn't need a master repository, I guess it didn't make sense to have revision numbers when it was created (for the Linux kernel). This is because when two people make separate revisions at the same time on their local repositories, a linear revision number would conflict.
However, I've never actually used any Git project/repository which didn't have a master repository. This is both local repositories for my own projects on my Dropbox folder, and professional repositories I've used (Android and the various repositories at the company I work at), And especially at work, it has been annoying that we didn't have revision numbers.
I wish Git would get a new feature added: the ability to assign a repository as the "master" repository, and in turn the ability for the master repository to assign revision numbers. If people are wondering how that would work considering people make commits on their local repository and then push them to the master causing possible conflicts, the revision numbers wouldn't get assigned until they hit the master branch and they also split it up for merges:
5
/ \
4.1 4.2
\ /
3
(or something similar to the above)
Lots of people who use an alternative VCS like Mercurial, Bazaar, etc., bitch about Git because the lack of revision numbers. To those who are unfamiliar, each commit in Git has a SHA1 hash which is used as an identifier instead of a revision numbers. Unfortunately, they are very unwieldy to communicate to others. At work we always use the name and date-time instead, but that has problems as it doesn't convey the branch for instances when it matters.
I checked out the full repository of an open source project I have been tinkering with in both SVN and Git (libgdx). The SVN was MUCH larger than the Git repository on my hard drive (i think 33% more, but I can't remember). There is something else one should realize when dealing with SVN... by having more files, you are by definition taking greater than or equal to the space of less files of the same length, due to file sectors (for example, a 1 byte file takes up a whole file sector, which is 4KB on my hard drive).
On top of that, it's extremely annoying to have file duplicates in your directory. I hate searching SVN folders and importing SVN projects into Eclipse (I know, I know, you can fix the duplicate file problem, but it's still annoying).
It seems like just about every argument in favour of Git could be equally applied to any other DVCS. On top of that, the only thing it has going for it is a larger community (and being the creation of Torvalds).
So, given that statement, Git is better than any other DVCS. :)
I've argued to wit's end that Bazaar is superior to Git in a multitude of ways (branches as separate file-system directories, ... explicit notion of a 'trunk' versus merged branches)
Half of your ideas really ARE better; for example a revision number is superior to a SHA not just in an opinion, but in a quantifiable way. However, branches in separate file-system directories and trunk vs merged is a superfluous way of describing the same concept, which is branches, and Git (and others) still maintains that concept.
I will argue, with both reason and experience, that separate directories for branches/trunks/tags are BAD. For example, they take up a linearly larger amount of space on your local storage media when checking everything out. Another example is that build systems can be messed up by differing directories... if you have trunk/ and branch/1 you have different levels of directories so ".." relative paths are screwed.
Having branches and a trunk is good, and Git fully supports it.
I think you took Dexter Herbivore's statement the wrong way. Philosophically there isn't an "absolute proof" or "truth" except in mathematics.
I personally believe that schools should inform children so that when they grow up they are able to make decisions on thier own... brainwashing for or against creationism or evolutionism (notice that I call neither of them science as they are belief systems.... sure you can argue that evolution has basis in science however the odds IMO are stacked against it and there are very large gaps in the theory where you just have to believe things are one way or the other.... so I personally can't count it as scientific fact)
Here's where your otherwise reasonable comment goes awry. The Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution are not belief systems. They are a collection of concepts and laws and facts that are grouped together to be called a Scientific Theory. They require no "belief". You are certainly welcome to make improvements to the various observed facts by data points in both Scientific Theories. In fact, that's what scientists do on a daily basis. You a certainly welcome to "not believe" the hundreds of thousands of facts and observations and what not, in the same way you are welcome to "not believe" that the gravitational field at the earth's surface is 9.81 m/s2... but such a fact is not changed by belief.
I personally believe that schools should inform children so that when they grow up they are able to make decisions on thier own... brainwashing for or against...
If you want to call teaching science as "brainwashing", then you are doing a disservice to science and your comment above shows your misinformed idea of what science actually is. Science is a process and it is based on the way we can come to conclusions based on observations and tests. We teach lots of things in science classes because millions of others have already done billions of existing experiments to come to the conclusions that millions have confirmed in a scientific process. By saying "let children make their decisions on their own" you are implying that they should either A. Repeat all scientific experiments themselves (not bad, but impossible for a single human in a lifetime) or B. Not respect the validity of the scientific process (horrible, horrible... we should not let children "believe" that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation is how flies are birthed from rotting meat).
so I personally can't count it as scientific fact)
Once again, the scientific theories of gravity and evolution are not facts, they are collections of hundreds of thousands of facts, data points, observations, principles, etc.
I may not agree with their unusual cultures, but it's THEIR choice how they run themselves (and none of my business).
I strongly believe that people should be left alone and let them choose how they run themselves, as long as it doesn't hurt others. However, choosing to teach creationism or evolution in schools very much so affects others. It certainly wouldn't matter at their own private home, but it does matter when you're making the choice for other families by fiat of an 8-person council vote.
Off topic, wtf is going on with the textareas on slashdot? Their performance is horrific on mobile devices - I had to compose this in my email client - as the cursor just doesn't work.
I agree! WTF, I would think Slashdot would have a high enough caliber of engineers that could have a simple working textarea for as many browsers as possible. The focus constantly gets swallowed in Chrome, and sometimes you can't paste text in the textareas either.
Umm, you think a sampling of beauty pageant contestants is an informative sampling of US public opinion? They aren't exactly average Americans.
Although, I'll grant you this... those contestants are trained to try to make an appealing answer to a general American audience. So one could read something into the fact that how they answer is trying to reflect as many American's opinions as possible. But, given that 80% of them thought that the theory of evolution was a "theory" as in "conjecture" and not as in "scientific theory", I don't think they were aptly equipped to perform a sample.
What is the circular explosion looking thing that happens around 2:20-2:25?
Health benefits are not rights
Well, you know what I meant, I hope. One thing that scares the shit out of me is that if I weren't allowed to visit my partner while he lay dying in the hospital. Or if I were driving through Arkansas with my children and something happened to where my family was not considered a family in that state and they took them away from me. I don't care if you call those things rights or not... these things are something that I sincerely am scared about and I feel like as an American, a country where none of its citizens seems to describe it without the word "freedom", I shouldn't have to worry about.
As far as the awful stories about children being taken away from their families, that is awful, truly awful. However, I don't see that those stories are really a "party" issue (Democrats, Republicans, etc.) Those are abuses and failings of government. And I don't thing these awful stories you mention changes anything I've said, in reference to Republicans far and away being more dangerous to my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness than Democrats.
That is an interesting assessment. A bit too simple, but pretty good for two sentences. I don't think Obama has really made that much more summary decisions from the ruling party than Bush did, though.
I do not disagree with you. I am aware that I am a "left libertarian". I certainly will care about rights especially related to my kids when we have children.
I also don't disagree with the fact that Democrats are also trying to take away my rights, such as banning home made lunches and other things such as saying what I can and can't watch on TV.
However, I reiterate my point that I hate the people who are trying to take away the certain rights I enumerated. Well, having sex and smoking weed aren't what I'm worried about. Not being able to protect myself with the law related to my homosexual partner/family is what I'm worried about, and being taken to jail for a significant portion of my life when I haven't harmed anyone is what I'm worried about.
I simply can't hate Democrats as much for the rights they take away, because being denied your life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness is by far and away more dangerous from Republicans than Democrats to me.
I specifically described what I hate. I did not say people who think differently that me. I specifically described the various rights that people are trying to take or have already taken from me. I did not write a 20 page long discussion clarifying everything, it was quite condensed, but if it matters, I do not hate Republicans, especially since half of my friends and half of my family are Republicans. I will reiterate, though, that I hate people who try to prevent me from having the same rights as heterosexuals such as the ability to visit my partner in the hospital.
If you think "tolerance" is defined as accepting people who take your rights away then you are wrong... tolerance does not have to extend to people who fuck you over. For example, if someone borrows your lawnmower and does not return it, you are not being intolerant by demanding it be returned.
And "For God's sake" is an expression.
You may think that it isn't upper middle class, but it is the top 15% of Americans. If you don't like the term upper middle class, fine. But the percentage of Americans who make $115,000 a year or more is 15% of Americans, at least it was in 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
If inflation has brought that number down since 2005, oh well, I doubt that the percentage of Americans who started gaining $115K/year or more has significantly changed during the recession.
Go ahead. Work the numbers on inflation. And stop being a chump.
Ha! I'm right and you're wrong!
Read through the lynch-mob mentality here on slashdot, then tell me that again. And these are supposed to be educated people with a bit more common sense than the average hick. For an even more fun experience, go surf youtube - you can find hundreds if not thousands of videos of police using reasonable escalation of force in order to arrest a suspect, each of which has thousands of comments filled with vitriol, demands that the cop be executed, his family be raped, etc, etc.
I really do sympathize with a cop who has to deal with that. And I am still adamant that such comments on YouTube are by far and away no excuse for not allowing the public to record public servants.
The statements you are making are called Strawman Arguments (google it). Just because horrible comments on YouTube are made from a recording of police officers by the public don't mean that the police should be allowed to operate as public servants in private without accountability. If a person in the public abuses or threatens a cop, that is illegal and it is illegal regardless of whether or not the police are being recorded. In fact, the fact that someone is committing a crime and it is being recorded is even better if it is being recorded, because it is proof above just the officer's testimony.
As a liberal who doesn't like Republicans, I can guarantee you that every right I've ever had to worry about in my life was in danger from Republicans and not Democrats.
Close, but you don't really understand the danger. Democrats and Republicans work together to deprive us of our rights. We get parental advisory stickers on one hand and we get banning of certain media in certain situations in the other.
I stand by my original statement. Every right I've actually needed and worried about being taken away comes from Republicans not Democrats. I agree with your assessments that Democrats also try to take away various rights in the guise of "think of the children" (and other ways too). However, the core ability of my ability to exist in freedom is not in danger from Democrats raising my taxes or telling me what I can't watch on TV. When Republicans tell me I can't smoke pot in peace and tell me I can't provide proper health care to my lover, that is far and away more dangerous to my peaceful existence.
Yes, I'm also what one would call a "left libertarian" but if I had to tell a random stranger in black and white if I were a liberal or conservative, a Republican or Democrat, I would say "liberal" and "Democrat" even though those terms carry a lot of baggage I don't want or agree with.
Your methods, on the other hand, are only more likely to bring your "police state" into reality. By demonizing police, you limit their effectiveness, and you breed more crime. You also create an us-vs-them mentality which is absolute poison to the survival of a civilized society.
No. I am also accountable for my actions at work. If I fail, I get reprimanded in some fashion. In the extreme, my career would be ruined. You are arguing against police being held accountable. If 99% of police are good and doing a good job, then 99% of police shouldn't care that they are being recorded. In fact, this is why so many police departments like the TV show COPS, because it sheds a good light on what police do, and what they have to deal with. Police being recorded, if they are doing good, is a good thing for both the public and the police.
m all for holding cops accountable for their actions, but the response has to be reasonable, it has to based on common sense, and it has to be carried out by the system. Punishing them in a trial-by-media based on some blurry footage, followed by a political decision to lock them up or dismiss them ..... that's wrong. Period.
So are you saying that people shouldn't be able to record police doing their jobs as public servants? Listen, I'm sympathetic to your worries that media frenzies can happen to cops doing their jobs, but that is obfuscating the issue. Media frenzies are not a good excuse to disallow the public from knowing what their public servants are doing. If a (wrong) media frenzy happens, that is not an excuse to prevent the public from knowing what the public servants do. Similarly, we allow the public to buy guns even though guns kill tens of thousands of people a year in this country, and I don't believe you would agree to prevent the public from buying guns because of that reason.
This is laughable like when Republicans say they are the party of Lincoln. The Democrat party used to be the conservative party in the South, but it switched sides during a period from the 60s to the 90s. The conservatives became Republicans and the liberals became Democrat. The Republican party used to be liberal, now it is conservative. This is why McCain had a hard time after the 2008 race in his 2010 Arizona election because his beliefs were very much aligned with the 1950s Republicans but not the 2010 Republicans. He had to make a hard swing to the right.
Indeed. During the last presidential election (Obama 2008), the national police association supported Obama, and many commentators talked about how it was ironic because most of the police in the country were Republicans, the "law and order" party.
I know I shouldn't respond to trolls, but it's late... As a liberal who doesn't like Republicans, I can guarantee you that every right I've ever had to worry about in my life was in danger from Republicans and not Democrats. You seem to think that as a liberal I have faith in the beneficence of the state. What I want is the state to protect me from others, without taking away my rights. In other words, I'd like to have gay sex and smoke pot as long as I don't fuck over anyone else, and I don't want assholes to tell me I can't do these things because I'm not hurting anyone.
As far as Democrats spending too much money and "obsession with taxes" (the latest Republican catch phrase), meh. It doesn't affect me the way Republicans claim it affects people like me. I'm a upper middle class (~115K/year) so I do pay my fair share of taxes, but the extra 3% or whatever everyone is bitching about is nothing compared to a cop pulling me over to take money from me when I haven't hurt anyone, or the government telling me I can't visit my partner in the hospital, nor catching my friends with pot and treating them as if they were bank robbers or some other high profile criminals. This is not hyperbole, this is experience. And once it really bit me in the ass... I had to pay an extra $1500 in the ONE month between jobs because the way COBRA* works, my partner had to go to the emergency room in that ONE month and the federal government would let heterosexuals keep the same benefits at the same rate as the company gives them, but NOT the same rate to domestic partnerships. Yes, an extra $1500 when it would have been an extra $0 if I were straight. I hate you motherfuckers like I hate Hitler and Stalin... you and your ilk are constantly trying to take away the freedom of others.
So fuck you, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. I love freedom and I hate Republicans for trying to take away my rights and freedoms and for God's sake not letting me live alone in peace. Don't kid yourself, asshole cops are not progressives and they are not liberal.
*COBRA is basically the law in America that allows employees who have been laid off to continue to have insurance at the same group rate as they had with the company. The company does not have to pay any money towards the monthly premiums if they paid a portion of it. In other words, the employees have to pay the full premium themselves. However, a family plan still applies even though the employee would have to pay whatever extra the company was paying. Unfortunately, domestic partnerships aren't considered families and therefore don't get to benefit from COBRA so they have to be paid as if they were individuals and not family plans.