Re: An interesting opinion on DVCS/git
- From
Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 6, 2015, 03:25 UTC
- Message-ID
- <54F91E25.4050008@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <54F723D3.1050805@drmicha.warpmail.net>
On 03/04/2015 08:55 PM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Yes, that article has a few really weak lines of arguments, such as the > tutorial count.
Here's his definition of the main draw of a DVCS:
No, the only thing that a DVCS gets you, by definition, is that
everyone gets a copy of the full offline history of the entire
repository to do with as you please.That completely misses the point. What about committing while offline, 'git blame' months-old changes offline, or local branches that don't have to make it to the server until they have cooked for a while, and so on and on?
We're not all "facebooks" with multi-GB repos, and I certainly don't care as much about disk space or bandwidth if losing those features is the cost.
It gets worse:
Let me tell you something. Of all the time I have ever used DVCSes,
over the last twenty years if we count Smalltalk changesets and
twelve or so if you don’t, I have wanted to have the full history
while offline a grand total of maybe about six times.I don't know how you can work on anything reasonably complex and multi-developer without using some of those features six times in a *week* (sometimes, six times in a *weekend*) let alone 12 years.