Online Git Reference
-
I'm reading up on Git because I'm using it at work now and the tutorial I'm reading keeps referencing SVN. You'd figure if you're writing a tutorial on Git and referencing SVN it's because you know both extensively, but as I read it, I'm seeing statements that are completely wrong about SVN. The author seems to only know about SVN superficially... but why compare them at all?
-
I'm reading up on Git because I'm using it at work now and the tutorial I'm reading keeps referencing SVN. You'd figure if you're writing a tutorial on Git and referencing SVN it's because you know both extensively, but as I read it, I'm seeing statements that are completely wrong about SVN. The author seems to only know about SVN superficially... but why compare them at all?
Albert Holguin wrote:
I'm seeing statements that are completely wrong about SVN. The author seems to only know about SVN superficially...
Welcome to development. That's the way it is with everything. Most times choice of tools seem more like religion than anything else.
Jeremy Falcon
-
I'm reading up on Git because I'm using it at work now and the tutorial I'm reading keeps referencing SVN. You'd figure if you're writing a tutorial on Git and referencing SVN it's because you know both extensively, but as I read it, I'm seeing statements that are completely wrong about SVN. The author seems to only know about SVN superficially... but why compare them at all?
The author assumes the reader has good knowledge of SVN, as you pointed out. Then it is easier for learning to compare with something you know, than starting from scratch. (Not always, but in this case, I think it is, that is the way I am teaching the stuff as well).
Albert Holguin wrote:
I'm seeing statements that are completely wrong about SVN.
Then ... one of you is wrong, the question is : who ? You might want to read this[^]. A very good introduction. There are also plenty of tutorials here on CP.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.
-
The author assumes the reader has good knowledge of SVN, as you pointed out. Then it is easier for learning to compare with something you know, than starting from scratch. (Not always, but in this case, I think it is, that is the way I am teaching the stuff as well).
Albert Holguin wrote:
I'm seeing statements that are completely wrong about SVN.
Then ... one of you is wrong, the question is : who ? You might want to read this[^]. A very good introduction. There are also plenty of tutorials here on CP.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.
Well, I've only been working with SVN for the past eight years. ;P ...and no, I'm not biasing how Git works, just this particular author's choice to compare it against something he obviously doesn't understand well.
-
Well, I've only been working with SVN for the past eight years. ;P ...and no, I'm not biasing how Git works, just this particular author's choice to compare it against something he obviously doesn't understand well.
I never said _You_ were the one who was wrong. :-\ And I suppose the author does not know that he does not understand SVN well. I have a lot of examples at work of people who *think* they can do something, while they definitely can't.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.
-
I never said _You_ were the one who was wrong. :-\ And I suppose the author does not know that he does not understand SVN well. I have a lot of examples at work of people who *think* they can do something, while they definitely can't.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.
Rage wrote:
I have a lot of examples at work of people who *think* they can do something
True. I'm trying not to be one of those... albeit trying and succeeding are two completely different things. :laugh:
-
I'm reading up on Git because I'm using it at work now and the tutorial I'm reading keeps referencing SVN. You'd figure if you're writing a tutorial on Git and referencing SVN it's because you know both extensively, but as I read it, I'm seeing statements that are completely wrong about SVN. The author seems to only know about SVN superficially... but why compare them at all?
Throw out everything you know about SVN, and particularly, throw out your mental model of how SVN works. Git works completely differently, and it helps to have the right mental model, starting with "everything lives on my computer locally -- branches, commits, the whole nine yards -- and the remote repository is only there to share work that I explicitly push up to it." Also, the other mental model is "everything I do, I do locally, such as commits and merges, switch branches, etc., and none of this affects the remote repository until I push the changes." That helped me get a lot further along in understanding the git model a lot better, as I was finding the mismatch between my SVN mental model and Git's to be a rather hair pulling experience. Also, "git reset --hard" is your friend. :) [edit]Also, I would "invest" in a good Git UI tool. I'm using SmartGit/Hg, which is OK. However, there are times when the command line is absolutely necessary. And finally, practice doing manual merges when rebase fails due to unresolvable conflicts. Merging manually and getting git out of the "rebase in progress" (or whatever it is) state is, in my experience, such a royal PITA that I often got hard reset and manually fold my changes back in rather than dealing with the idiotic <<<<<<< and >>>>>> representations of changes that it injects into my files. Not that that is any different from other source control systems, so I can't quite blame Git for that, except to say that it's merge process sucks as compared to how well SVN's works. Marc
Automating Semantic Mapping of a Document With Natural Language Processing
-
I'm reading up on Git because I'm using it at work now and the tutorial I'm reading keeps referencing SVN. You'd figure if you're writing a tutorial on Git and referencing SVN it's because you know both extensively, but as I read it, I'm seeing statements that are completely wrong about SVN. The author seems to only know about SVN superficially... but why compare them at all?
Albert Holguin wrote:
but why compare them at all
Do not! Let me second Marc on that, do not learn Git from SVN - the reading you have is all wrong. Git and SVN have a completely different design/model and even it have - mostly - the same set of functions (pull/push, merge and so on) they are different on every aspect and using one or the other will effect your way of work and thinking...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
-
Throw out everything you know about SVN, and particularly, throw out your mental model of how SVN works. Git works completely differently, and it helps to have the right mental model, starting with "everything lives on my computer locally -- branches, commits, the whole nine yards -- and the remote repository is only there to share work that I explicitly push up to it." Also, the other mental model is "everything I do, I do locally, such as commits and merges, switch branches, etc., and none of this affects the remote repository until I push the changes." That helped me get a lot further along in understanding the git model a lot better, as I was finding the mismatch between my SVN mental model and Git's to be a rather hair pulling experience. Also, "git reset --hard" is your friend. :) [edit]Also, I would "invest" in a good Git UI tool. I'm using SmartGit/Hg, which is OK. However, there are times when the command line is absolutely necessary. And finally, practice doing manual merges when rebase fails due to unresolvable conflicts. Merging manually and getting git out of the "rebase in progress" (or whatever it is) state is, in my experience, such a royal PITA that I often got hard reset and manually fold my changes back in rather than dealing with the idiotic <<<<<<< and >>>>>> representations of changes that it injects into my files. Not that that is any different from other source control systems, so I can't quite blame Git for that, except to say that it's merge process sucks as compared to how well SVN's works. Marc
Automating Semantic Mapping of a Document With Natural Language Processing
Thanks for the info! ...yeah, I wasn't trying to compare it to SVN but this guy keeps comparing it. I was just looking for a thorough explanation on Git. His explanations on Git related things are pretty good but his comparisons to SVN are both unnecessary and some completely wrong.
-
Throw out everything you know about SVN, and particularly, throw out your mental model of how SVN works. Git works completely differently, and it helps to have the right mental model, starting with "everything lives on my computer locally -- branches, commits, the whole nine yards -- and the remote repository is only there to share work that I explicitly push up to it." Also, the other mental model is "everything I do, I do locally, such as commits and merges, switch branches, etc., and none of this affects the remote repository until I push the changes." That helped me get a lot further along in understanding the git model a lot better, as I was finding the mismatch between my SVN mental model and Git's to be a rather hair pulling experience. Also, "git reset --hard" is your friend. :) [edit]Also, I would "invest" in a good Git UI tool. I'm using SmartGit/Hg, which is OK. However, there are times when the command line is absolutely necessary. And finally, practice doing manual merges when rebase fails due to unresolvable conflicts. Merging manually and getting git out of the "rebase in progress" (or whatever it is) state is, in my experience, such a royal PITA that I often got hard reset and manually fold my changes back in rather than dealing with the idiotic <<<<<<< and >>>>>> representations of changes that it injects into my files. Not that that is any different from other source control systems, so I can't quite blame Git for that, except to say that it's merge process sucks as compared to how well SVN's works. Marc
Automating Semantic Mapping of a Document With Natural Language Processing
Git is only different from SVN if you want to use it as a distributed version control system. You can set it up to work "centralized" like SVN.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.
-
Git is only different from SVN if you want to use it as a distributed version control system. You can set it up to work "centralized" like SVN.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.
Rage wrote:
You can set it up to work "centralized" like SVN
In which case it's not Git anymore...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
-
I'm reading up on Git because I'm using it at work now and the tutorial I'm reading keeps referencing SVN. You'd figure if you're writing a tutorial on Git and referencing SVN it's because you know both extensively, but as I read it, I'm seeing statements that are completely wrong about SVN. The author seems to only know about SVN superficially... but why compare them at all?
If ya wanna refer to an on-line git, all you need to do is type my name.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I'm reading up on Git because I'm using it at work now and the tutorial I'm reading keeps referencing SVN. You'd figure if you're writing a tutorial on Git and referencing SVN it's because you know both extensively, but as I read it, I'm seeing statements that are completely wrong about SVN. The author seems to only know about SVN superficially... but why compare them at all?
Albert Holguin wrote:
You'd figure if you're writing a tutorial on Git and referencing SVN it's because you know both extensively,...
Well there you go - that is the source of your problem. Being able to write, regardless of the topic, doesn't mean that one actually knows the subject being written about.
-
If ya wanna refer to an on-line git, all you need to do is type my name.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I've heard people called a git before, I've never seen a definition, but I've felt it was a cross between an idiot and an opinionated a-hole. Was that what you were thinking when you talked about typing your name? :)
It's not complimentary, but I'm English, so I don't demand that people call me nice names all the time.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
It's not complimentary, but I'm English, so I don't demand that people call me nice names all the time.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
FYI, I wasn't calling anyone a git, just checking on your understanding of the English usage of the word vs. the computer usage. It's nice to know that I didn't insult you, the English have a rep for being easily insulted. I think we Americans are sometimes considered so thick-headed, we can't tell when we are being insulted. For instance, I'm quite sure you didn't mean to insult me, so if I misunderstood, I apologize. My excuse is that I'm American.
-
Albert Holguin wrote:
You'd figure if you're writing a tutorial on Git and referencing SVN it's because you know both extensively,...
Well there you go - that is the source of your problem. Being able to write, regardless of the topic, doesn't mean that one actually knows the subject being written about.
jschell wrote:
Being able to write, regardless of the topic, doesn't mean that one actually knows the subject being written about.
Being part of a huge company doesn't make it better. Just to verify my understanding of the UNICODE definition I checked SQL Server's help definition. They are still using an ASCII character as an example for using UNICODE. ASCII is a subset of UNICODE, so it's valid usage, but you'd think they'd use a character that can't be put in a varchar field as an example.
-
FYI, I wasn't calling anyone a git, just checking on your understanding of the English usage of the word vs. the computer usage. It's nice to know that I didn't insult you, the English have a rep for being easily insulted. I think we Americans are sometimes considered so thick-headed, we can't tell when we are being insulted. For instance, I'm quite sure you didn't mean to insult me, so if I misunderstood, I apologize. My excuse is that I'm American.
KP Lee wrote:
the English have a rep for being easily insulted
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: Nice one! Best joke I've heard for weeks!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
KP Lee wrote:
the English have a rep for being easily insulted
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: Nice one! Best joke I've heard for weeks!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
