|
|
|
Home » Community » Coffee corner » GIT
| GIT [message #15990] |
Wed, 21 May 2008 22:22  |
|
|
|
I found GIT to be very fast. Importing 1500 files of uppsrc to git repo took only few seconds (on win32, p4 3ghz and msysgit). And Git dosn't create .git directory in every subdirectory. The only con right now is git needs to be installed on remote machine if we want our repo to be shared with others (bazaar dosn't have this restriction). I think we should move from uvs/svn to git. It's much more powerful. For example I can commit to my local repo not working code and sync it with remote repo if my changes will be finished. I have started to work on UltimateGit app (as there is no really good gui for git IMO) but I think we should finally add to TheIDE some kind of VCS interface so anyone willing could write plugin to his favourite VCS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: GIT [message #16008 is a reply to message #16007] |
Thu, 22 May 2008 16:15  |
mdelfede
Messages: 1308
Registered: September 2007
|
Ultimate Contributor |
|
|
I don't think GIT is bad, I only think that it can bring troubles if people don't share often enough their local repositories....
Linus Thorvalds uses it for Linux Kernel, but that's an obvious choice because he wants to have the full control of repository and decide which patches to apply. Let's say that he uses it like a central repo, and people who wants their patches applied must share with him.
With svn, if you make a patch, you put on central repo and all people CAN fetch it when they wants. With git, you must update your repo, remember to share with all other people (OR setup some sort of central repository, but then, what's the advantage of a distributed one???) an other people must fetch AND sync their local copy. There's no more an "official" copy on which people works, if you don't setup a central public repository.
I see git much more useful to keep some sort of local history of your working copy.
BTW, the fact that svn puts "hidden" .svn folders everywhere (which are usually not hidden on windows...) disturbs me too, but it has the advantage to keep all stuff in a singkle tree.
I don't know how git works, but I gess that it must keep management data somewhere too.
Ciao
Max
|
|
|
|
| Re: GIT [message #16009 is a reply to message #16007] |
Thu, 22 May 2008 16:20 |
Novo
Messages: 1430
Registered: December 2006
|
Ultimate Contributor |
|
|
I’m using monotone at home. It is not that fast as GIT, but it has other advantages like one-file executable and one-file repository, which is an SQLITE database. I’ve been working a lot with CVS, SVN, and ClearCase. GIT seems to be closer to ClearCase. At least it has a familiar “rebase” command. In monotone everything is unfamiliar. I stuck once trying to merge different combinations of brunches, databases, and working copies. I’d recommend trying out similar merge operations with GIT. And “repair database” command in GIT scares me a little bit ...
Regards,
Novo
|
|
|
|
| Re: GIT [message #16335 is a reply to message #16009] |
Mon, 09 June 2008 09:03 |
|
|
I thing that it is a good link for comparation GIT and SVN. For my view I'd like GIT!
http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion
| Quote: |
For example the Mozilla repository is reported to be almost 12 GiB when stored in SVN using the fsfs backend. The fsfs backend also requires over 240,000 files in one directory to record all 240,000 commits made over the 10 year project history. The exact same history is stored in Git by only two files totaling just over 420 MiB. SVN requires 30x the disk space to store the same history.
|
[Updated on: Mon, 09 June 2008 09:05] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: GIT [message #16351 is a reply to message #16342] |
Mon, 09 June 2008 21:19 |
|
|
| luzr wrote on Mon, 09 June 2008 07:28 |
Our infrastructure server will have no less than 300GB free (probably much more).
Mirek
|
Much more important to me than space is speed of git. Listing all files from repository, commits, updates are noticable faster than in svn. Opening upp project in SmartSvn takes a while (my UltimateGit does the same in few seconds. We should really consider git or bazaar in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: GIT [message #16355 is a reply to message #16353] |
Mon, 09 June 2008 22:11 |
|
|
| luzr wrote on Mon, 09 June 2008 15:34 |
Will you make UltimateGit uvs2-like? 
(I mean single sync for multiple repositories?)
Mirek
|
Each repository has assigned a tab, so you can open many repos at once. Grouped operations are on to-do list
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: GIT [message #23068 is a reply to message #23067] |
Sun, 13 September 2009 23:31 |
Didier
Messages: 726
Registered: November 2008
Location: France
|
Contributor |
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't think that hg is the choice for everyone. Seems to me that big projects are using git. Gnome is using it, Qt too and also KDE is thinking to switch to it (amarok made the move). See the list from git site for almost every project using git.
I wish U++ to use git too
|
Open Solaris, Open JDK, Mozilla, Python, Xen, ... I think are big enough projects. 
Anyway it seems that GIT has done some progress on documentation since the last time I looked at it.
GIT and mercurial have exactly the same syntax for the main commands, but GIT seems more complicated for the other ones: that is what is usually said about GIT: complicated commands (at least what I read last year).
Anyway the point is to figure out what peaple will, and wan't to use. It seems many upp users work with windows so good windows integration is requested (I haven't tested the GIT Windows GUI).
Documentation is a central point: Mercurial has a complete, and yet simple documentation as well as many interesting plugins.
Simplicity of use is also a primary point: it seems that GIT and HG are just as easy to use (at least for the main commands)
I'm not saying GIT is better or worst than HG, I'm only saying it's worth looking closely at it before deciding to use GIT.
|
|
|
|
| Re: GIT [message #23071 is a reply to message #23067] |
Mon, 14 September 2009 10:45 |
andrei_natanael
Messages: 262
Registered: January 2009
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
| cocob wrote on Sun, 13 September 2009 23:10 |
is u++ used for big projects ??? no but it is a great tool ! This is not a argument.
cocob
|
Well, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against mercurial, i really like it because it's written in C/C++ and Python and it's not written in a mixture of languages like git(C, shell script, perls, tcl, python, etc.). It have the same features as git and and proves to be better supported on different platforms.
| Didier wrote |
Anyway the point is to figure out what peaple will, and wan't to use. It seems many upp users work with windows so good windows integration is requested
|
Both scm have svn integration so it's possible now to use both in development of U++, the only missing part is theIDE integration(using hg and git from theIDE).
I really like to see U++ going distributed using hg or git. Right now hg is better supported on Windows than git so it's by far the right choice to use it if Mirek think ever to move to a distributed scm.
The only thing remaining is the git popularity vs hg. Do we care about that?
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 11 15:39:31 CEST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00806 seconds
|
|
|
Members
Pages
Help
Register
Login
Home
.)
