Subversion VS Github : Github SUCKS
Community Forums/Technical Discourse/Subversion VS Github : Github SUCKS
| ||
| This is probably going to turn into a rant. What do you guys use? Do you use Subversion of GitHub? We used to use Subversion but now we use Github. I can kind of understand the advantages of it over Subversion but I swear, the amount of bottlenecks, stale branches and conflicts that it causes everyday. Work efficiency is just horrible. Can somebody please explain to me why everyone is changing to GitHub when it is quite clearly the enemy of productivity. I've spent the last days what feels like paperwork, moving around code, fixing conflicts and not actually getting on with any real work. |
| ||
| Spot the deliberate mistake. Github is a web based hosting service for repositories, the same as Bitbucket. For some strange reason people always seem to get the git tool mixed up with Github. Instead of me writing a large post. Here's a web page that goes into Subversion vs Git. The points of interest are the workflows. You should check out the linked articles at the bottom of the page for further reading. BTW. The Github Desktop application is pants. You are better off using git via the command line or Git for Windows. And you can still get conflicts with svn. |
| ||
| Hey dawlane, I'm using TortoiseSVN and SourceTree with GitHub. I admit I'm not totally on board with what is going on yet. Yes I know you can get conflicts with SVN but when they arrive they can be easily spotted and fixed, or at the least alerted. I hate all this "everyone works on their own branches" and then merge later. There can be (and usually is) a conflict, but nobody knows until at some point people merge in. Then comes stuff like code review where merging can not be instant and by the time somebody gets around to checking, it might be too old or new conflicts arrive. It baffles me anyway. Some people here use command line git on Mac. Which I think is a bit shitty. Well, I haven't used it. I'm confused enough with pics and diagrams let alone a text prompt. |
| ||
| Client side, visual studio code has extremely elegant support for git. Server side, from ssh command line my workflow is git stash - moves all my local changes to safe place git pull - gets latest version git stash pop - ad my changes back on top git commit -m "tada! new version" any other workflow i find hideous, confusing, prone to mistakes, and like perl, not safe for mortals. In combination with github git certainly makes awesome replacement for ftp so on that front it totally rocks. I can't imagine life without git clone blhablah |
| ||
| If you're just going to stash your code instead of branching it, that doesn't sounds very much different from using Subversion and just commiting your stuff to the same branch :) The thing is though, if you stash your work, as far as I am aware, then only you yourself can get at that stash? In other words not feasible for group projects, maybe good enough when you're on your own. |
| ||
| I use Fossil, its also a DVCS and it has a builtin web-server with wiki and all that jaz. Much nicer than SVN and GIT imo, and its made by the same people who makes SQLite, so you know its quality software. I do not however use a GUI for it, preferring to use the terminal as i do with most everything else hehe. |
| ||
| A lot of conflicts occur in a team when coding style isn't enforced, the IDE's use different settings, and of course lack of communication. Though when it comes to the same type of conflicts that occur over and over, the git rerere tool should come in handy. You should also look at an tutorials that deal with workflow/conflicts in team collaborations. For a beginner, Atlassian git tutorials should be a good place to start. And there is of course the Git Pro book. You find a lot of the GUI tools are very limited when it comes to git. The command line is all powerful. |
   |