%!$ Easy Diy Woodworking Bench Plans For You #!@

You can build documents of any complexity from your data. Writing access has been reinstated with Android 5 Lollipop through harddware backwards-incompatible Google Storage Access Framework interface. Related Searches auto clicker for roblox. Git is by no means a perfect tool. Everything is a branch in git. Although sometimes useful, I feel this ease of destroying history is a golden rule Git broke.

You can now change your hotkeys! Changed the about page 3. Added a few minor options v1. Your settings are now saved from your last session so you only need to enter them once. Includes last fixed location 2. Added double clicking and triple clicking 3. Added Right clicking and middle clicking.

It works in any cloud drive folder Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, etc , on any portable storage device USB flash drive, memory card, portable hard drive, etc , or from your local hard drive. With millions of users all over the world and a full collection of open source and freeware software as well commercial software , PortableApps. Haller, whose Portable Firefox started the portable software trend. We've been making software portable since March Today, our team stands at over developers, translators, application packagers, designers, and release testers with nearly a billion app downloads.

Our goal is to centralize the knowledge and development of portable software and build an open platform that any software or hardware developer can use. You can build documents of any complexity from your data. It's not difficult to build custom exporter to suit any need. Available as an Eclipse plug-in or a standalone application, it comes in two editions: Community and Professional.

The Professional edition includes additional features, maps, advanced HTML5 charts and professional support. Well choose between right and left mouse clicks and even choose the time delay between each click all on one small simple application. Pentaho tightly couples data integration with business analytics in a modern platform that brings together IT and business users to easily access, visualize and explore all data that impacts business results.

Use it as a full suite or as individual components that are accessible on-premise in the cloud or on-the-go mobile. Pentaho Kettle enables IT and developers to access and integrate data from any source, and deliver it to your business applications, all from within an intuitive and easy to use graphical tool. Need help installing PDI? Dolibarr ERP - CRM is an easy to use ERP and CRM open source software package run with a web php server or as standalone software for businesses, foundations or freelancers prospect, invoicing, inventory, warehouse, order, shipment, POS, members for foundations, bank accounts Dolibarr is also available with auto-installers for users with no technical knowledge to install Dolibarr and all its prerequisites Apache, Mysql, PHP with just one package.

Other platform can use the generic distribution. Seata, or Simple Extensible Autonomous Transaction Architecture is an open source distributed transaction solution that brings high performance and easy-to-use distributed transaction services under a microservices architecture.

It has 3 basic components: a Transaction Coordinator for maintaining the status of global and branch transactions; a Transaction Manager that defines the scope of global transaction; and a Resource Manager that manages resources being worked on by branch transactions, and drives branch transaction commit or rollback.

Seata has played a pivotal role of distributed consistency Middleware in Ali economy, and has provided strong support for businesses of all departments. It continues to be used and trusted by dozens of other companies.

AutoHotkey is a free, open-source scripting language for Microsoft Windows that allows users to automate any desktop task. Create simple to complex scripts to automate tasks that include form fills, autoclicker, macros, and more. It's small, fast and runs out of the box with built in commands for beginners and a full-fledged scripting language for advanced developers.

JasperReports Library is the world's most popular open source business intelligence and reporting engine. It is entirely written in Java and it is able to use data coming from any kind of data source and produce pixel-perfect documents that can be viewed, printed or exported in a variety of document formats including HTML, PDF, Excel, OpenOffice and Word.

OpenKM is a Web 2. Due to its technological architecture design, OpenKM meets the document management needs of businesses of all sizes from SMEs to big corporations. Thanks to its elegant and intuitive interface, OpenKM transforms complex operations into easy tasks.

Mantis is an easily deployable, web based bugtracker to aid product bug tracking. Checkout our demo and hosted offering. Vtiger CRM enables sales, support, and marketing teams to organize and collaborate to measurably improve customer experiences and business outcomes. Vtiger CRM also includes email, inventory, project management, and other tools, providing a complete the business management suite.

Magento is an open-source e-commerce platform written in PHP. Faveo Helpdesk is an automated, web-based help desk system for managing customer support. It serves as an easy to install, easy to use and cost-effective ticket management solution for startups, SMEs and enterprises. Faveo Helpdesk enables you to efficiently tackle customer service management, incident management and SLA management, with a built-in knowledge base so you can share information with staff and customers. Liferay Portal is the world's leading enterprise open source portal framework, offering integrated Web publishing and content management, an enterprise service bus and service-oriented architecture, and compatibility with all major IT infrastructure.

Transform and Innovate your company with vtenext. It allows you to engage your customers into your business processes using a specific technology. It can also be used to manage processes generated by internal customers. Nagios network monitoring software is a powerful, enterprise-class host, server, application, and network monitoring tools. Designed to be fast, flexible, and rock-solid stable. JasperReports Server is a powerful, yet flexible and lightweight reporting server.

Generate, organize, secure, and deliver interactive reports and dashboards to users with a web based BI Platform. Following on that, the idea the squash and cherry-pick are complex commands is borderline insane to me, they are both exceptionally straightforward, some of the easiest parts of git to learn… it sounds like someone has never bothered to try them if they are having issues with them.

Seriously, let me teach you git cherry-pick. Find the commit you want… note its hash. Checkout the branch you want that applied to… git cherry-pick … you now have enough git-fu to cherry-pick. Regarding cleaning up existing commits extremely difficulty according to you. So, lets say you have done 8 ugly commits, and you want to clean them up…. I suspect people are confusing git being hard, with an absolute inability to be bothered to learn the tool.

It amounts to a new VCS, except its interface is not really more usable than git. So why am I using hg, again? Even if hg is easier and saner at the beginning, if you need staging then git very quickly becomes easier because hg requires you to use mq to work on your commits, while git allows you to use a pretty good VCS to work on your commits namely, git. I should not be forced to start proliferating working copies just to put together clean commits to a public repo, that is insanity. Why use mq at all?

The workflow should be kept as simple as possible. One of the main points of git is that maintenance is pushed to the edge, it allows for greater scaling. Imagine if Linus had to do the house keeping for every coder on the kernel; nothing would be achieved. I have paid for free software, but the non-free stuff you did to Linux about forbidding reverse-engineering the protocol is unforgivable, especially if you plan to keep on doing that. I suppose a better answer might have been a stripped down free version no guis, no subrepos, no binary server and a for-pay enterprise-y answer.

In retrospect, that might have been a better answer. As for not reverse engineering the protocol, I know everyone hates that but we were trying to protect what little business model we had.

GitHub is making squillions off hosting Git, yet as I understand it, the Github code itself is closed source. There are several, in fact. Check out bzr, darcs, or my favourite, Mercurial. I Agree!!

The very defensive counter arguments from self proclaimed powerusers, is very shaky. There are just so many permutations of potential error and problems with Git that even power users are most likely ignorant of just how many errors they introduce into thier beloved system. Mercurial, having the same powerful features, looks way more professional. Since git relies on shell scripts for extensions, you cannot actually change the commands without breaking everyones scripts….

That porcellaine is pretty much set in stone, but the name fits since it makes everything built on it extremely brittle…. Sometimes in established, large projects , that forced structure is a good thing. How are you forced by git to make feature branches? If you like you can work directly in mater and never create any branches.

Or, if you can prefer, you can make all your changes in the same branch and then pull that into master, this might be good if you are using github. Arne Babenhauserheide : Since git relies on shell scripts for extensions, you cannot actually change the commands without breaking everyones scripts… That porcellaine is pretty much set in stone, but the name fits since it makes everything built on it extremely brittle….

In general, when dealing with an interface of any sort, you never change existing interfaces, you only add new interfaces. You do not even deprecate old interfaces until after you have addressed most all of the needs being addressed by the older forms.

And deprecating basically means you go for some period of years with the old interfaces working, but setting off warnings when they are used. Actually, introducing new interfaces can get crazy also. The most useful thing you can do with most interface changes is to reject them….

You can do that. Git, despite its protestations, is a social tool. Because if you are not already used to git, the current commands are pretty unintuitive and hard to learn.

If you want an unchanging interface, you have to design it cleanly from the start and be extremely conservative with changes. And the easiest way to state that you want an unchanging interface is to tell people to use it in scripts. As soon as you have enough users, every change to an existing option wreaks havoc to so many scripts which you do not control, that you cannot actually do the change.

Arne is confusing the API, where your semantics are fixed once you name them, with user interface. This kind of simplified FUD is just not constructive. Anything you can do in subversion you can also do in git. Try to maintain a large project in Subversion before you say such things. Its a horror and all the simple things about the subversion api is just not worth anything.

I worked on a 3Gb repo at a previous company, without any problems. Part of the problem is that no-one considers the cases of a system they always prefer to spread FUD in favour of their preferred system. There are thousands of great open source developer tools out there. The Linux and Gnu communities have a particularly unfortunate, and highly influential attitude towards how people should use and develop software — but not everyone subscribes to it.

To a beginner these all sound like they might do the same thing. Everyone is a committer, everyone is a maintainer. Branches and tags are unshared by default. To some degree, this level of decentralization is just a total paradigm shift. As others have mentioned, Mercurial is more moderate in this way. No argument from me about the learning curve and negative usability of the information model, documentation, and commands. A rubbish article, compare apple with orange. Please identify what you are comparing?

Distributed VCS or Centralised VCS, you should either present how SVN being use in distributed environment in order to compare with the Git having the same usage, or present how Git being used in centralized environment in order to compare with SVN having the same usage. This will benefit newcomers to learn how thy should use them and which tool is more suitable. For my code to be safe I have to feel in cotrol of it. With git I feel lost and insecure.

How safe is my code? For my code to be safe I have to use a tool that safeguards my code from the ground up, and I must use that tool properly. Feeling has little to do with it, but nevertheless, with git I feel powerful and completely in control.

I have never lost any code with git. Here is an assessment from my point of view. TFS — Hands down the best option for a large team of. NET developers working a single project. VSS — Total Crap! This is where I could go an a rant but I wont. Just google VSS and you will see. SVN — Great open source source control. There is not a lot to complain about. As a mater of fact my home development server ran SVN for years.

However, I did switch every thing over to git. You have t have a server just like TFS. There is administration work involved just like TFS. GIT — Fast, Flexible, and easy. The are just like Github, but you can have free private repos as my remote.

There are just more ways to manage them that are not really necessary for smaller teams. The other downside of git is that some folks are afraid of command line tools for some reason. With git I feel this is not the case. And as a related note, who the hell thought it was a good idea to use the write bit of the permissions as the is-this-checked-out flag?!

But yes, you can obviously script your way around anything for one local environment. By making it scriptable using the basic commands, they pretty much barred their way towards ever having a simple interface. If they change one of their core commands in a backwards-incompatible way, all user-scripts break. And this already happened there was a simpler git ui whose name I forgot. It tried to wrap around the git commands and regularly broke down because of some incompatible change. You can if you use good abstractions for your API.

But that requires more careful thought up front…. Thank you for this. I thought it was me. One day on a big project using GIT I got an email saying not to commit any changes or pull anything because the repository had been inadvertently reset to the state it was in three weeks before.

It appears a developer had returned from holiday and having found it hard to merge their work simply forced a push. This could be seen as an argument against git. I suspect Management would consider it an argument against holidays.

Could someone point out what advantage a distributed version control system has over say a clustered SVN system? They should have enabled the non-ff option on the remote — which is there for precisely this reason. So then you wind up wasting time, forever, instead of just paying the up-front cost to design software properly.

In terms of market share, Linux is a success, In terms of technical quality, Linux is an unmitigated disaster zone of low quality code, failed designs, and rewrites. Git was built to support that development model. Pull Requests and the concomitant branch mania are a relic of the Github Era, not Git itself.

I would agree, if I did not have Mercurial, which does everything git does while being easy to use. That is a serious reason not to use it. The whole point of a SCM is to protect your commits. Anything else is just gravy. That might be ok in an open source situation, but totally unacceptable if you got paid to write it. Maybe when the SVN guys add shelving, the reasons people use git will go away, but I doubt that. The reasons to choose it seem more political than anything else.

If your safety system is reliant on everybody knowing everything the self-appointed best coder knows, and having a backup system that is somehow bullet proof and budget proof , and moreover that fear of dismissal is your primary data protection method, your company is quite clearly a terrible place to work. I would argue everything from terminology to failsafe conditions could do with some renewed thought.

Like the SA rifle, raw power is somewhat undermined if the tool sometimes kills the user. If you need to merge between branches, as far as I understand the information model of SVN is just not really good for that, and so you are continuously confronted with stupid behavior such as your own commits causing tree conflicts when you merge them back from trunk , and operations including deleting and renaming files can become quite destructive.

Worse, they often seem innocent when performed and become destructive when merged — e. SVN is really not at all suitable for distributed open-source development. I have not tried, but I can well imagine the excruciating pain and inconvenience that it would cause. Having said that, for small, co-located teams undertaking typical development activities in an SME-like environment, particularly when one or more team-members do not have a software development background, ease of use is paramount.

Create an organisation on github and your problems will be solved. It has been two years when I moved my colleagues onto git and github. None of them are programmers, and none of them had any experience of git or for that matter versioning systems. Now everybody is happily working with no problems. The workflow is nothing more than git pull, git commit -a, git push. Sometimes new branches are created, then you need to say precisely onto which branch to push, and you need to use git checkout to switch between branches.

In two years, I had only one cock-up, but after 10 minutes of swearing I fixed the problem in 10 minutes with no changes lost.

The only thing which bugs me a little bit is merge commits in history. I could do something about it, but I am too lazy. As a maintainer sometimes I had to dive into deeper waters, but I had no problem in finding information how to do that.

I also prepared mini documentation for my users, which contains everything they need to know. Yeah, the problem with advice like this, though, is that it comes from the perspective of a codebase maintainer.

What are you maintaining — documentation? Do you worry about keeping a clean history, encouraging your users to rebase? Well I call myself maintainer, but I am really only the most knowledgeable user, which pays for private repositories.

Several projects are running happily without my intervention, I only participate in them for my real work, statistical consulting.

I work on statistical projects, and git is used for sharing R code and data. I do not worry about clean history, because I did not find it useful.

As I said merge commits are annoying, but they do not interfere with blame history, so I can track who did what. And yes I understand that my setting might not be typical. But my experience contradicts several of your points made. Hence the comment. I think you highlighted an importan point here. Pingback: fl0blog » Blog Archive » Learning git. Thanks Steveko.. The ironic thing is your instructions and especially your diagram and helped me understand what is going on..

Because Git documentation tends to focus entirely on the relationship between your working directory and your local repository. My impression is they instead each have their own repo and either email patches or ask others to pull from them. This quirk of how kernel development works means they do things differently from most git users. But some UI decisions were made with the kernel workflow in mind.

Pingback: Free GIT repository hosting rizwaniqbal. It only adds. If you do anything you cited on your article with the repository, you could always use reflog and checkout to a pre-destroyer push. It does. History-editing operations like a bad rebase can also destroy data. Well, I agree with garbage collection. But you can recover yourself from a push —mirror or a bad rebase checking your reflog unless it has already been garbage collected.

But you have a point. Git is not a mere toy, and you have to take care of some things to make a good use of it. Amazing post! I totally agree with most of your statements. So I like to be able to pull from my repo anywhere with connection. Because i have a home server, which is also my php server as well as my svn remote repo, I wanted to configure git with my current xampp virtual host setup.

But having been at it for around 4 days now, looking at a lot of tutorials and blogs about setting up serving git over http. It is just so damn complicated and not user friendly. Setting up svn under my xampp was extremely simple. I just gave up. Where is the repository and how big is it? However, you are being overly kind towards subversion. We have a rather messed up corporate intranet that makes interfacing with the remote svn server quite painful, especially the latency is an issue.

Branching and merging requires a single person dedicated to that job. That is both stupid and costly if you are used to git. Our use of subversion is a poster child use case for why using subversion is a bad idea.

But it is certainly a big part of it. Git-svn has liberated me from that madness. I can work for weeks on my private branches while keeping up to date with the latest changes in svn and routinely git svn dcommit large changesets.

I actually use a remote git repository for storing and sharing my branches and commits we have a nice github like facility where I work. Scares the hell out of my colleagues because they are not used to seeing that much change in a short time frame appearing in svn.

But I do my due diligence of making sure all tests pass before I dcommit so no harm gets done. Basically by the time I dcommit to svn, my work is in a releasable state. But Git is definitely hard to master and there is a quite high barrier for getting started. However, the reason git is rapidly replacing subversion as the vcs of choice most OSS projects and many corporations is that overall you are better off with git than with svn.

It enables teams to change their work flows and not be blocked on a central resource i. Changing the work flow is essential because it is entirely possible to use git like you would use svn, which is not a way you are going to get much out of git. Especially with larger teams changing the work flow is a very big deal. I agree it may seem like overkill if you have been treating your VCS as a glorified file server that you use for backing up work in progress.

Which is pretty much the way most engineers tend to use it sadly. But then, if you work that way, maybe you should consider using a version control system properly. Fear of branching and merging is a wide spread thing among subversion users. And for good reasons: subversion absolutely sucks for these activities and you can seriously mess up a code base with a botched svn merge, thus blocking your team.

The hard part of using git is learning to merge and branch properly and then unlearning that these activities are somehow dangerous, tedious and scary. Everything is a branch in git. Your local repository is a branch. The remote git repository is a branch and if you use git-svn, svn trunk is just another branch. Git is a merging and branching swiss army knife. So, if you are stuck with subversion, do your self a big favor and learn how to use git-svn.

Yeah, I agree with basically all of that. SVN is easier to use, Git is more powerful. In my sector, SVN is basically dead — no one myself included really uses it by choice anymore. Distributed naming is very hard. The moment you have to start adding disambiguating information, you start ending up with something that looks like a URL: i.

If you want to create a short name, then it should be up to you to choose what you want as a short name. If you relax that constraint with the fall back position of URLs then you could improve usability. Imagine this:. But repositories do have local names. A repository name is the file system path to the repository.

Yeah, I can understand why Svn might be getting in your way: 50 developers provide quite a large number of moving parts to coordinate. My Svn experience has been in teams with between developers, using really simple branching strategies all development in trunk , so my experience with Svn has been very very positive overall.

I am currently using Hg, and with my current use-case can see no overwhelming advantage for one over the other. It is worth saying that much of the development that I have done has involved compute-intensive testing and performance measurement, typically run on a limited-availability resource High Performance Computer or cluster , driven by a Continuous Integration server. As a result, there was never really any practical alternative to the develop-everything-in-trunk branching strategy, and distributed development was never really an option either If the only way you have of performing a non-trivial test of your code is to run it on a centralized, shared compute resource.

It is also worth noting that developers were encouraged to check in several times per day, which further limited the scope of each individual change, and further reduced the probability that two changes would affect the same part of the same file. In summary: for small to medium sized co-located teams, I think that Svn provides sufficient functionality. Indeed, its simplicity gives it a distinct advantage in these situations.

For large, distributed teams on the other hand, where developers are forced to work independently anyway, Hg or Git are obviously more suited. For large, co-located teams, such as the situation described above, I suspect that much of the pain of using Svn is related to the use of complex branching strategies, as well as the manner in which code is organized and development carried out.

Using Git may well reduce the amount of pain, but it seems that there are other, more fundamental problems that need to be addressed, such as how the code is organized, and why presumably independent changes are hitting the same lines of code. Can you explain how something that saves everything is smaller than something that just saves differences?

It makes no logical sense at least to me. Please explain! I find Git much easier to use than SVN. And why not a working dir per local branch? You can just clone one branch X if you wish, but you have to bear in mind that this branch might depend on commits from another branch Y i. Both Mercurial and git allow this. This concept is not exposed directly in Mercurial and is seldom necessary to worry about it there.

About one filesystem tree per branch, there is another DVCS, bzr, which actually takes this approach. With Mercurial, since local cloning is so easy, I also do this sometimes. I have local clones for major branches the named branches and push and pull locally. I STRONGLY recommend keeping different branches in different working directories:- It lets me work on two or more features at once one feature branch can be running unit-tests while I modify the source code of a second feature branch, and review the changes made on a third.

I could not disagree more.. You can literally click in the bottom right, create a new branch, make changes, commit, switch back to another branch, merge, and never have to shutdown, restart, reconfigure, reset ENV paths, reset run paths, etc. While idealism says the location of a project should never matter, when attempting to run large Enterprise apps, whether they be monolithic or micro-services based in nature, at some point your setup is going to rely on the specific location of your source code.

The separate directories is one of the more annoying things about SVN. Not to mention that this is an invalid argument. Nothing stops someone from cloning a Git repository as many times as they want into as many directories as they want and changing the branches in each of the folders to be whichever branch they want.

You can run a whole distributed system locally without the need of a server. It also supports having to NOT have a different folder for each branch. SVN supports this with switch if you want to risk losing all your code. I recently switched from Subversion to Git.

But this turns the conversation into an Apples vs. Oranges comparison. Git is a distributed version control system. In fact.. As this is what Linus does. If we want to get extremely picky and attempt to compare SVN vs.

Git when adding a new file, these are the only commands you need:. I submit the anecdotal evidence that I have accidentally destroyed many hours of work by running commands that sounded totally reasonable but turned out to permanently destroy data. In the end I recloned, accepting the loss of time instead of investing much more time which I could use for recreating the work instead…. It is unfortunate you lost code.

That is probably one of developers worst nightmare. Even if you go through and force deletes which can easily be locked out the data still exists in the Git Garbage Collection. So the commit graph shows everything that has happened. Git rebase is used to replay the commits you have locally on top of commits that have been fetched from a remote graph. Think of it as time travel. If you were the only one that have experienced those events in time no biggie. If you check in a password and need to get rid of it..

And even if you do manage to remove something it is almost guaranteed to exist in the Git GC. Git is distributed version control and subversion is not. Hence there are extra steps in commiting cause there is a remote repo to consider which is not necessary to update on every single commit.

As for the then having to issue pull requests thats just again an extra step as its not needed on every commit. So actually more often than not git has same number of steps in storing code changes as subversion. It also refers to making a frustrated and ignorant assumption about the current state of your local repo, index, or working directory.

How does Github for Windows affect the equation? It is supposed to be a superior UI at least for Git. As far as i know, git was born out of necessity. Git was designed to be used for versioning the linux kernel which is not a software project that you and me work on daily basis. All the hacks were not put in place but were designed into the core model. It does not go by mangoes to mangoes. If comparing is necessary then one could point out what Linus says in a talk that, subversion is the single most software that was started without a good reason.

Code is meant to be read. Rebasing lets you work however you want on your repo, then clean things up so that your commits are easier for others and your future self! This is a good thing. If you really wanted to preserve the original commits, you could probably work in one branch and then rebase onto another branch.

Fossil is good, which provides a fully implemented DVCS and could be simplified via autosync mode. The only weakness is it cannot handle huge source tree. Not stopping history rewrites and telling developers to use rebase is the quickest way to lose days of work weeks at a time.

But for the first two points: yes the information modell is somewhat complex, but from my point of view the problem is not the number of features git supports, but the number of things you have to know before you can work with git e. Everytime I try to teach someone some basic git commands, nobody understands the staging thing the first time.

I might be a bad teacher, but I think is just a little too abstract. Finally you can user whatever front-end you like to use with git. Have a play creating blobs, trees, and commits :. I personally heartily recommend a perusal of the documentation in many fine books about how git internals work. Once you realise its just a big graph, glued together with SHA1 and gzip, and all the functions are just different methods of mutating the graph, it seems much much simpler. Edward : steveko: In a nutshell, if github turns around tomorrow and demands money, or it cuts off access, then everyone who currently uses github will simply switch to another repo for upstream.

The problem is that this is probably not the case. So, there at least is some lock-in. For the record, I am one who loves hg but has found git difficult to work with and has also found hg-git to work very well. That way you have all your bugs in your repo. And ideally you do the same for your documentation. That is why I never fully committed to totally learning Git. I am dead sure it will be replaced by something simpler in the future. Yeah, there could be some truth in this.

It took something like Git to make everyone see the benefits and potential of DVCS — now someone just needs to refine it. In other words: Waaahhh! The complexity serves a purpose, and is actually very elegant. Until we end up with an iPad with Clippy running on it, that is useless for anyone with a working brain. But of course few people get to choose their VCS software anyway.

Refusing to use Git vastly reduces the number of open source projects you can contribute to. More like a waste of time. Being decentralized is great and so are easy branches, etc. Well said! But the badly or apparently not at all designed user interface is still a problem, and not just because I have to read the man page every time I need to know which git reset flag I need. This is a nice write-up, and many of your points are valid. The thing that I like about Git is that despite what you say in 5 there is a lot of abstraction and quite a few nice shortcuts.

For example, you can skip the whole staging process git add by passing the -a flag to git commit. But the SVN concepts were easier to grasp. An extra option flag bolted onto one command is not an elegant abstraction whereas a setting that completely hid the index from sight would be. There is a sweet spot for SVN for which it works quite well: making small changes directly to trunk which is typical for small-scale OS projects.

You update, code, update again, resolve the rare conflict, and commit — simple and easy to understand. If you want to create two separate patches for the same file, or you are asked to fix something in your patch, things will get messy quickly. On the other end of the scale, if you are a major contributor to a project of nontrivial size, which needs versioning and backwards compatibility, or has big rewrite efforts which should not conflict with the continuous maintenance going on in other words, you need multiple branches , then SVN starts sucking bad: its behavior at merging is erratic at best.

Files disappear from the diff because a merged add is actually not an add but a copy , commits start conflicting with themselves, code is duplicated without any edit conflict, and worse. Not to mention that the whole thing is excruciatingly slow. Why make an inscrutable prompt when there are already a great prompt built in to git-completion. As someone relatively new to git, the thing I find really messy is submodules.

Concept is great but the implementation sucks. Tools and apps with intuitive interfaces and workflows have been around for a couple of decades, at least. So expecting something to be straight-forward to operate is not an unrealistic dream. But why do you want to make people change git for that? The complexity is harder to understand but if you have done so, it gives you much more power over your repository. But if you make it simpler, it will automatically destroy the advantages people love it for.

There are many ways that the usability of Git could be improved without decreasing its power at all. Yeah, I sometimes use EasyGit — but it definitely runs a risk of creating even more commands to remember.

It should give pointers to the Git developers though. I think the problem with feature branches is not that you can use them, but that you have to. Feature branches are great, when you do somewhat larger development. But they are a needless complexity when you just want to do some smaller changes. It does not allow you do to add names to you changes, but enforces that — even for the most trivial changes. In projects where many people work simultaneously from a given base either large or small and merge only after many smaller changes, that forcing does no harm , because they would want to separate and name their changes anyway.

But there, persistent naming would actually be more helpful, so people can later retrieve the information, why a given change was added. The information is lost. So the forcing does not help for large projects and does harm for small projects. I like the way you explained certain things but the use of illustrative diagrams is more exciting…thanks. I wholeheartedly agree. Git makes simple things hard and has a completely unintuitive CLI. Frontends like EGit do not help much. So the really interesting question is, why is Git so popular, when there is an equivalent but better alternative?

Second point: Good strategic option likely not planned, though : Most times the maintainer chooses the DVCS, so cater to the maintainer to get spread around. Linus scratched his itch. Other maintainers had the same itch. Now the users are itching all over, but they do not get to choose the DVCS except with hg-git.

The way I like to put it is, Git was written by Martians. All your points are dead on right. You only need onw git command and a 2nd version control to get by: git clone to download a source code, and a 2nd version control system, like my home grown svc shell version control to create a patch to send to the upstream by mail. The drawback is, that you dont find my tag in any git based project. Try to download Android Cyanogenmod source. You will likely need a day even with a fast internet line.

I love git, but I agree that some of the commands are difficult to understand, and man pages for commands like rebase are awful. Pull fetches all branches, but only merges or rebases the the currently checked out branch HEAD , push pushes ALL your branches to any matching remote branches unless you specify which branch you want to push to.

Git could definitely use a UI make over. I also agree that Git has a steep learning curve. I also like how open source projects use pull requests, which are infinitely better than the SVN equivalent: emailing patches to the the maintainer.

I also have trouble without the index when going back to SVN. It doesn't seem like a super useful feature until you go back to a system without it. For those of you who that think that power has to come with a crappy user interface, take this post I wrote a year ago as an example of something that is an obvious mistake in the UI design. It just makes it harder to learn. Even SVN is too difficult if you need to persuade non-software-developers to commit their code, so I agree with your thesis and then some!

The philosophy behind Git and most DVCS out there is that you need that complexity to manage the problem of version control effectively. For instance: you mention the stash, that is something svn intends to add as well.

Man pages suck, but I reckon Git has about the best docs out there. There is a huge community, a lot of books, etc. Not sure what the example is about, is that a regular workflow for you? Seems like an exceptional flow. Not true. The Git model is clearly appreciated by contributors, as seen by the massive adoption. What helps maintainers is also good for contributors.

I just press commit and push. Yes this is scary about Git. There is a back-up to get most changes back. Although sometimes useful, I feel this ease of destroying history is a golden rule Git broke. Same as 7. I do think in a DVCS world it makes some sense to clean up a bit. I like the IBM Jazz model a lot. Same as 5. Git is by no means a perfect tool. But it is a massive improvement over SVN, especially for distributed open source development.

If you need a complex tool to manage the problem, then why can Mercurial do it as well while staying simple? In that case you should just use it for some time — and have a look at hg-git, which provides you a transparent bridge. So everything you can do it git can be done in hg, too. But most things are much easier. Let me know when you find such a system. There is a substitute. The kind that uses the best tool for the job. I stand by my statement that git is the most powerful.

You can moan about it all you want, but it works and it works really well. But then, it will still take some time. But it would completely invalidate any argument you can make about the power of git. This is precisely the reason I went with hg. I plan to get my feet wet with the latter and if it sticks, remove svn from my vernacular forever.

When using a DVCS and getting used to even the basics, going backwards is like taking a trip back to the stone age. You mean I have to be connected to the internet to commit? The remote server has to be up? Hg Workbench combines basically every UI dialog into one location which is amazingly useful.

If I could choose it would always be Hg but there are things I pine for in Git, well specifically one: gitflow. But there is one complaint I could add:. No ability to edit log messages after the fact. In SVN you can if the repository admin enables it tweak log messages after the fact, and it turns out to be really handy.

It has many other uses as well. Hey, steveko. Because of it, editing log messages post facto is a conceptually consistent thing to do. Can I use this as my homepage?

I hate Git. The combination does a very good job, obviates the need for command line and has returned far more than the learning cost and smart git licences: it works for us. There are built-in tools in git for that. This not only prevents from accidental or intentional history rewriting but also keeps your sources safe if your git server gets hacked.

GPG does not solve 9. Or worse: pull, rewrite, push — that actually garbles up the history of the contributor once he pulls, so he will have to rewrite his history, too — and all who pulled from him have to do the same. Arne Babenhauserheide : GPG does not solve 9. If you do not use the —rebase option when you pull the contributions, how does the rewrite get into your repository?

Or, if you are particularly strict and you probably should be, if you are pining for svn , you could use —ff-only. If someone else does a rebase of stuff you already pulled, your history gets garbled, because you now have duplicate history.

If you send a pull request and the other one does a rebase, you have to prune out your copy — and rebase everything you did on top of the changes to the other changes. Pingback: 10 Things I hate about git Part-time Life.

Honestly, I did not read very single word of your post. To be fare, the learning curve is much deeper than svn.

This is not complete because the tool itself, but because it introduce lots idea of versioning control which is seem odd in other svn. The workflow of versioning in git is quite different, and this workflow looks complicated at first, but once we get used to it, we find lots rational. Now I have come to the crossroads in my life. I always knew what the right path was. Without exception, I knew, but I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard. He has chosen a path.

Let him continue on his journey. Protect it. Embrace it. Second: I disagree that git does not provide meaningful abstractions. The abstractions git provides are very much like the abstractions provided by a file system — and once you understand them, they are simple to work with. Third: I dislike some of the defaults that git provides for example, I always have people I am working with put in their global config: push.

But my distaste for those defaults is a reflection of the admin system provided by github, and git was designed before github. Finally, comparing git to svn is sort of like comparing google maps with a tumblr.

I can be totally in awe of the aesthetics of the tumblr and I can say all I want about how google maps does not have those design characteristics. And, in doing so, I would be pretty much missing the point of why people would like either one of them.

Thank you for this well-timed post. I am familiar with at least 9 source control systems, and I am paid-administrator-proficient with 4 of those, including ClearCase and Perforce. Git is such a mighty pain in the rear that I just gave up ever working on any open source project that uses it.

Its learning curve is a sucktastic cliff and you really do need to know almost everything about it before you can stop being dangerous. No thanks. The tool should not be more complicated and inconsistent than the programming language source it protects. But two branches in the same repository and you do not want to consider the target branch as the current branch?

Why would you even want to do that? If you know git internals pretty well, you could probably find a way to forge a merge commit in memory without checking them out. Just… why? Linus never ever studied properly even having such learning grands like Tannebaum. But I fully agree that Mercurial achieves the same as git without introducing the same kind of complex interface.

That does not make git a bad tool. It just makes it inferior — but heavily hyped. Even the first hate-thing is enough to not to read further for each one who really tried git. Other 9 are also a crap of subjective shit, decorated with lovely graphics :. No more command line syntax to remember and it shows you a nice log on all the branches and past commits. Just read your post for the first time, complete with the August update.

But even back then, decentralized version control was not some new field of research. Linus was indeed bold to write his own system from scratch, and its success speaks for itself — but part of the reason he was free to do that was that he was the only constituent he had to satisfy. But even if we had seriously considered it, I think SVN would still be a centralized system today. The MediaWiki team has been going through a lot of pain, adopting Gerrit as a code review and Git management tool.

I guess my feeling in all this is that Git or something equally powerful is necessary, but not sufficient, for effective code management in distributed teams. Besides the basic version control functions, intuitive and secure are the essential features of a version control tool. If the tool cannot even manage the source code safely, then why use it. This new-fangled world with distributed workflows, and the new ideas that come with it are too much. In other words, more than half of the rant is a person used to wheelchair complaining about complexity of using wings.

The rant is only useful to Git maintainers really, just as a reminder that their user base is growing very diverse. Just choose Git. I have a feeling you approached git expecting it to be like svn and got disappointed. They are used for completely different workflows. They are suitable for completely different workflows. Try managing Linux kernel with svn…. If you have a 10 developer project maybe git is overkill, but if your project grows enough then git is the best choice around.

Just a note about Github, many people use pull requests PR as part of their daily workflow. A pull request should be opened early, very early, before any real changes have been made. The PR serves as a staging ground for discussions about the change, and a place for code review to occur. You can PR between two branches in the same repository. When I work on a project we all have push access to the same repository, but we still use PRs to coordinate changes.

Comparing Subversion to git is like comparing a single-speed bicycle to a Jeep Wrangler or notepad to Microsoft Word. But once you learn the basic theory you have a much more powerful tool at your disposal. This article is like hearing a whiny teenager complain about how hard his calculus class is because he thinks algebra should be enough math to get through a Computer Science degree.

Unfortunately, it was actually created because Linus needed a tool. It was created for Linus by Linus, and then he decided maybe other people would like it too and let everyone use it. And if they do, they certainly have no right to complain about it. I was thinking that, right up until I read the actual examples. But that someone in your project decides what subset of Git features make most sense to you.

Your post has good points. From my perspective, git is awesome and I can live with the complexity of the commands because doing a lot of the things I do now easily with git were painful and dangerous with the previous version control systems. CVS was incredibly limited and I was constantly repairing checkouts by editing files in the. CVS directories.

Hmm, very interesting idea. That said, my impression is that people working to design new git user interfaces often have a rather limited view of what will want to be doing or what they should be wanting to do with git for example: git flow. It would be nice to have a tool that is really really simple for the simple things, yet also able to handle the more complex things when required, so it can be used by time-pressed non-programmers who would really prefer not to use version control at all and experienced developers with sophisticated needs alike.

Sensible defaults, easy installation, good documentation etc.. Unfortunately, I suspect that the tool would have to have absolutely no interface whatsoever to stop them being bamboozled.

It is tempting to take an arrogant line and give up on these individuals, but I strongly disagree. There are highly intelligent domain specialists with limited time and little interest in software engineering issues, who nevertheless have a huge contribution to make to many projects.

Bringing their contributions under version control has a huge benefit in terms of communication, automation, organization, and team synchronization. Bottom Line: We need to make our tools simpler. Not just a little bit simpler, but dramatically, radically, disappear-from-sight zero-interaction simple. Telling people that they are ignorant is not the solution, particularly when they represent valuable specialist expertise to the organization.

I would rather take a more conciliatory approach and save up my balance of good-will for situations where it really matters Like the importance of keeping files neatly organized. This is particularly true when the specialists in question view the software engineering function as something that is subordinate to them, and that should operate in the sole service of their objectives. It would really help me if the tools just got out of the way, and I did not have to apologize for them and the inconvenience that they cause.

If I am using prepackaged software, and I am working with someone that does not want to deal with it, there are a variety of options open, including providing wrappers click on this icon… and engaging someone else to support them if this fails, talk to Sam , and so on….

Free-woodworking-plans-teds-woodworking-room Woodwork-bench-vice-90 Fun-wood-projects-to-do-50