Same git client for the whole team, or dumb idea?
-
There are no stupid questions- just stupid people. Keep that in mind as you answer my very possibly stupid question: :-D Any advantage to having the development team standardize in terms of the git client? I know they all basically do the same thing- pushes, pulls, merges, branches, etc. But is there any reason to ask all developers to use the same one (like Git GUI or Sourcetree), or is this just micromanagement with no benefit? I was just spitballing that maybe, if everyone is on the same sw and there's a problem in the client itself, it's easier to deal with, or maybe there are tiny differences which make it advantageous to keep everyone on the team using the same one? Thoughts?
Using Git at all is the real dumb idea... :doh:
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain -
There are no stupid questions- just stupid people. Keep that in mind as you answer my very possibly stupid question: :-D Any advantage to having the development team standardize in terms of the git client? I know they all basically do the same thing- pushes, pulls, merges, branches, etc. But is there any reason to ask all developers to use the same one (like Git GUI or Sourcetree), or is this just micromanagement with no benefit? I was just spitballing that maybe, if everyone is on the same sw and there's a problem in the client itself, it's easier to deal with, or maybe there are tiny differences which make it advantageous to keep everyone on the team using the same one? Thoughts?
If all developers remote into a common development environment, you need install/maintain only one client.
-
There are no stupid questions- just stupid people. Keep that in mind as you answer my very possibly stupid question: :-D Any advantage to having the development team standardize in terms of the git client? I know they all basically do the same thing- pushes, pulls, merges, branches, etc. But is there any reason to ask all developers to use the same one (like Git GUI or Sourcetree), or is this just micromanagement with no benefit? I was just spitballing that maybe, if everyone is on the same sw and there's a problem in the client itself, it's easier to deal with, or maybe there are tiny differences which make it advantageous to keep everyone on the team using the same one? Thoughts?
intra-team support is easier if everyone is using the same tools.
-
Using Git at all is the real dumb idea... :doh:
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark TwainWhy?
-
Using Git at all is the real dumb idea... :doh:
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain -
There are no stupid questions- just stupid people. Keep that in mind as you answer my very possibly stupid question: :-D Any advantage to having the development team standardize in terms of the git client? I know they all basically do the same thing- pushes, pulls, merges, branches, etc. But is there any reason to ask all developers to use the same one (like Git GUI or Sourcetree), or is this just micromanagement with no benefit? I was just spitballing that maybe, if everyone is on the same sw and there's a problem in the client itself, it's easier to deal with, or maybe there are tiny differences which make it advantageous to keep everyone on the team using the same one? Thoughts?
The best git client is the command line. I kid you not. The first time I heard it I scoffed at the idea. But after a while I would not go near any of them tools today. I know this feels like a stretch if you come from a VS/CVS sort of background -like I did - but try it. To be clear: command-line for
git pull/branch/add/commit/pushthat is. For solving merge conflicts i usemeldbut here everyone uses their own tools for that. I would not want to work in a place where ppl need support for such basic tools..."If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
-
intra-team support is easier if everyone is using the same tools.
Except when they're dumb tools ... because some guy in QA read about it on the internet. Then everyone uses the same dumb tool and corresponding procedures.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it. ― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
-
intra-team support is easier if everyone is using the same tools.
I think that if there is a base tool (like bash for git) that people can use as a last resort, then teams members can use other tools if it makes their lives easier. If my tool fails, it is up to me (time and money and maybe/probably loss of performance ) to make it work and or revert back to a team approved tool.
I'd rather be phishing!
-
There are no stupid questions- just stupid people. Keep that in mind as you answer my very possibly stupid question: :-D Any advantage to having the development team standardize in terms of the git client? I know they all basically do the same thing- pushes, pulls, merges, branches, etc. But is there any reason to ask all developers to use the same one (like Git GUI or Sourcetree), or is this just micromanagement with no benefit? I was just spitballing that maybe, if everyone is on the same sw and there's a problem in the client itself, it's easier to deal with, or maybe there are tiny differences which make it advantageous to keep everyone on the team using the same one? Thoughts?
which Git client do you use? TortoiseGit?
diligent hands rule....
-
There are no stupid questions- just stupid people. Keep that in mind as you answer my very possibly stupid question: :-D Any advantage to having the development team standardize in terms of the git client? I know they all basically do the same thing- pushes, pulls, merges, branches, etc. But is there any reason to ask all developers to use the same one (like Git GUI or Sourcetree), or is this just micromanagement with no benefit? I was just spitballing that maybe, if everyone is on the same sw and there's a problem in the client itself, it's easier to deal with, or maybe there are tiny differences which make it advantageous to keep everyone on the team using the same one? Thoughts?
I don't think there's a real need for it, although if you all use the same tool you can help each other and give tips and tricks. However, people have their own tools and preferences and I always like it when employers take my individual needs into account. One thing to watch out for is licensing. GitKraken, for example, has a free tier for open source development, but it's not for professional teams. A developer may not care about that a lot and I think you can just download and use it, but your company is legally obliged to buy a license*. If everyone uses their own tools, make sure they get the appropriate licenses. And that's where another pro to all using the same tool comes in... Managing licenses is a hell of a lot easier :D * Although the chances of getting caught/fined may be very low.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
