Timeline for how to use version control
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2011 at 23:05 | comment | added | Apalala | @Tadeck You can configure HG and GIT to sign every changeset, but anyone can fake the signature (not the changeset!). As Torvalds explains, it is all mute if a solid hierarchy of trust doesn't exist. | |
| May 7, 2011 at 22:49 | comment | added | Tadeck | @Apalala, you may be right - I use Git extensively since the time I learned it and I stopped using SVN in projects I do not have to use it. However, the 'trust' part is still an issue for me and I still hope it will be solved in the future. Also thanks for the Linus's video, will look the whole presentation :) | |
| May 7, 2011 at 22:31 | comment | added | Apalala | @Tadeck Regarding SVN, I used it, a lot, and I ended up thinking that it was no improvement over CVS (which at least has plain-ASCII repositories and is mature enough to never corrupt them). Again, Torvalds explains it well in the video I linked before. The inability to do work offline, and the inability to merge makes old SCM tools deprecated. | |
| May 7, 2011 at 22:27 | comment | added | Apalala | @Tadeck That's not the way Mercurial and GIT work in my understanding. In these, a single person is in charge of what goes into a repository, be it by commits, pulls, or patches. In distributed repositories, if someone has push privileges, then you already trust them with all your heart. Linus Torvalds explains it well in this talk: youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 | |
| May 7, 2011 at 12:42 | comment | added | Tadeck | Apalala, some question: how Mercurial handles information which user authored specific change? In Git you can alter it and commit change as someone else, thus creating some mess (there is some feature to distinguish commiter from submitter, but it is not obvious enough). Has Mercurial solved this distributed-version-control-related issue? | |
| May 7, 2011 at 12:32 | comment | added | Tadeck | Don't you think this is actually identical to creating SVN repository server on localhost? What you need is to configure the central repository and maintain it and when you move your files you mus make sure the SVN repository is still accessible (don't even think about copying the whole central repository every time you move files to different machine). Also I do not think Subversion is deprecated (I am not talking about CVS though) - it is just centralized and in some cases it would be a better idea to enforce centralization. | |
| May 7, 2011 at 3:12 | comment | added | Apalala | SVN does not require a server, but it does require that the repository be in a directory different from the working one. SVN and CVS are generally deprecated in favor ot tools like GIT and Mercurial which don't require a network connection for daily work and don't require a central repository for collaborative and distributed software development. | |
| May 6, 2011 at 23:25 | history | answered | Tadeck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |