50 Versions of Shed Control Wars
-
The intention is more "I expected it to behave like a different VCS and when it didn't I decided it wasn't the right tool but carried on the conversation because either a) people suggested locking a file was wrong and I wanted to know why or b) people suggested other things I didn't agree with".
-
putting some on child directories completley override the ones from parent dirs which leads to lots of duplication.
Wait, "override"? I thought Subversion didn't inheritsvn:ignore
s from parent directories at all.Does whatever UI you're using hide that fact and automatically propagate them around or something?
-
Does whatever UI you're using hide that fact and automatically propagate them around or something?
svn.exe?
nope.
-
While I know my grammar isn't brilliant, you could easily see what I meant and being a twat about grammar doesn't prove any other point than you are a massive grammar nazi.
When you make stupid comments like these, as far as I am concerned you can get fucked.
If I read a sentence I can't parse, would you prefer I guess what you mean, or call it gibberish? Noting that in this case I read it like 47 times, and I still have not even the vaguest idea what you may have meant.
I don't think it is realistic for software that is used on almost every platform, that caters to many different developers to even be expected to choose a default diff tool.
Nor do I, but I'd appreciate them at least recognizing the need and (more importantly) realize that their mission as VCS authors isn't done until their tool works with every format. What bothers me most is people saying it's a "done" product when it's maybe a third done.
-
If I read a sentence I can't parse, would you prefer I guess what you mean, or call it gibberish? Noting that in this case I read it like 47 times, and I still have not even the vaguest idea what you may have meant.
I read it once, and understood it perfectly; I didn't even notice the typo until I explicitly looked for it.
And I imagine just about everyone else in this thread did similar.
-
If I read a sentence I can't parse, would you prefer I guess what you mean, or call it gibberish? Noting that in this case I read it like 47 times, and I still have not even the vaguest idea what you may have meant.
You know what, just be polite and say "I don't think I understand what you said? or say "I believe you meant this?" ... a lot less confrontation.
In anycase, I re-read it and while I was heavy on the question marks ... I think anyone that has English as their first language could have got there.
Nor do I, but I'd appreciate them at least recognizing the need and (more importantly) realize that their mission as VCS authors isn't done until their tool works with every format. What bothers me most is people saying it's a "done" product when it's maybe a third done.
It works fine and is documented thoroughly and there are a lot of people that use it and don't make such complaints ... have you ever considered that it isn't as much as a problem as you think it is?
-
Why the fuck would you want to lock files? I have no idea why you want want to do this.
-
My reasons are covered above.
-
I just read them and I don't understand why, must be an unusual case I haven't considered.
-
To prevent conflicts in binary files? As stated some 80 times above...
-
How that works seems to be reasonable to me. TFS does something a lot less sensible and just says something has changed when it hasn't if you use the wrong options on certain merge operations.
-
-
-
You know what, just be polite and say "I don't think I understand what you said? or say "I believe you meant this?" ... a lot less confrontation.
I like saying gibberish.
In anycase, I re-read it and while I was heavy on the question marks ... I think anyone that has English as their first language could have got there.
This gibberish:
If you want everything done for your buy and use a proprietary SCM system.
Is "heavy on the question marks"? The gibberish without a single question mark? I see I'm dealing with a real genius here.
-
Yeah, I use git (too?). Above is an entirely reasonable work flow. So is locking the file for a short while....
-
I assumed the bit before where I thought "this might be difficult to parse" to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I dunno how saying "If you want a complete set of features you should use a proprietary SCM that provides everything including the kitchen sink" is some sort of gibberish?
-
How that works seems to be reasonable to me.
Right; but you don't know what a question mark is.
That scenario is entirely different than the one we're talking about. In that scenario, both changed branches belonged to the same person and only one of them was current. It's nothing like the "two developers unknowingly edit the same Excel file at the same time" case.
-
-
But when matey forgets to unlock it and everyone is fucked ...
If you need to move back, surely the fact that it is in an SCM means you can move back to it? So what the point of locking a file when you can always go back to the earlier version?
-
I assumed the big before where I thought "this might be difficult to parse" to give you the benefit of the doubt.
This is also gibberish.
-
But when matey forgets to unlock it and everyone is fucked ...
Then you go in TFS and remotely force-unlock it. They thought of this.
-
Only if you have permissions.
-
Sorry I typoed bit into big, typo corrected.
-
But when matey forgets to unlock it and everyone is fucked ...
So locking is silly because I might work with idiots? Unless they're on holiday, I can ring them and tell them to check the file back in
1 - the idiots I work with aren't the devs/technical people so aren't going to be near a VCS
2 - as if there's not a way to override it because IdiotDevB has gone to Spain for a week and left his file checked out
-
So what the point of locking a file when you can always go back to the earlier version?
Some binary (and non binary) files really don't lend themselves to merging. So preventing waste of time merging/recreating all the changes from one changeset in the other manually.
-
I might work with idiots?
To be fair, most people are idiots.. Assuming that there are none at your workplace would be a tall order. 😉
Also: why are utf-8 smileys broken? Mine have disappeared from my 'real name'
-
If they can be got hold of. I've worked with things like sourcesafe where that was a real problem with group policy once someone left and it only existed in some weird state on their machine and was a huge pain in the ass.
-
To be fair, most people are idiots.
Yup. But if I had to use Git, those same idiots would be using that and would fuck that up in some other way.
-
. But if I had to use Git, those same idiots would be using that and would fuck that up in some other way.
Never underestimate the ingenuity of idiots when it comes to fucking up.
-
-
Surely even if was the worst case I just ripped those files out and stuck them into a new branch?
-
So locking is silly because I might work with idiots?
It's all tradeoffs.
Most of us (except blakey) would pick a different route than you, but we're not working with whatever weird thing you're working with. Blakey would say, "What? I can't understand your gibberish."
-
Surely even if was the worst case I just ripped those files out and stuck them into a new branch?
But then you still have to do one set of changes twice. Instead of serializing them, which is what @loopback0 needs to do.
-
That's why SourceSafe has been deprecated for like 10 years now.
-
-
Surely even if was the worst case I just ripped those files out and stuck them into a new branch?
Exactly.
But then you still have to do one set of changes twice. Instead of serializing them, which is what @loopback0 needs to do.
(shirty discourse - post isn't empty)
-
I expected it to work one way and when it didn't I forever decided that is total rubbish
Welcome to the world of @blakeyrat.
-
I like spouting gibberish
FTFY :)
-
-
Congratulations, you slightly rephrased my joke and presented it as a new joke. You win 76 internets.
-
-
you slightly rephrased my joke and presented it as a new joke.
I changed the meaning, I think:
I like saying gibberish. => I like saying the word "gibberish."
vs.
I like spouting gibberish => I like saying meaningless nonsense.At least that's how I read the first one.
-
The double meaning is part of the joke, and you are an idiot.
-
This gibberish:
If you want everything done for your buy and use a proprietary SCM system.
Is it really that hard to read that and recognize that it means
If you want everything done for you, buy and use a proprietary SCM system.
-
However, locking is fundamentally impossible in any multi-user source control system that allows offline working, as it's impossible to tell an offline client about a change in lock state.
Thus you can only have "no offline working", or "locks that don't actually work".
As offline working is a major - some would say core - feature of most (all?) DVCS, shikata ga nai.
-
Using SVN (or other VCS supporting checkout/locking) I could check a file out which locks it, then go offline, change it, go online and check it back in. Boom. I worked offline; the world didn't end; locking worked.
-
What if someone else started editing their copy after you locked, but they weren't talking to the svn server at that point?
-
-
What if someone else started editing their copy after you locked, but they weren't talking to the svn server at that point?
If they're not talking to the server, they're presumably editing a local copy and not one from the server? Either way, they can't commit until I have, and that's still not an issue solved with Git.
-
No you didn't.
You have to go online before you can start or end the work, thus you can only work by going online.If you cannot go online, you cannot begin any work.
This ability to begin work at any moment is a core feature of DVCS.
It's not for everyone, and has its own set of pitfalls but it is usually better.