I don't understand the negativity. I'm not saying that git is bad, or that git sucks. It is what it is, and not wat most of the people really want.
> We have this already. It's called collaborative desktops over VNC ...
We still want a revision control system, things like commits and all.
> So you're into collaboration, but not on branches? I would have said branches related to specific units of functionality, streams of development or specific issues.
Depends on the workflow. Many people have long-lived branches, introducing big features/refactorings. Many other prefer short-lived branches, where one branch typically is used by a single person. I still think branches should be focused on topics, but the topic (and thus the branch) must be the same on all computers, instead of having one version locally, another one that is mapped to it but potentially has different content on the server, and 1 different branch per other user. How many times have we had to "oh you pushed on your branch, I have to get it first"
> Definition of branches aside, this is the way old-style centralised VCS like CVS, Subversion actually work - and you can still use SVN if you want to ... or you can use git in that manner and never have to worry about it's more complex details.
Yep, that's the model: one place where people synchronize. The issue with those was not the centralization (look at GitHub), it was the lock mechanism. I can use git to replicate it, or I can use the folder.bak and folder.v1.final on a NAS method. It's not because it's possible that it's desirable
> I'm sorry this is really quite hilarious. Go! Stop whinging and go do it!
Ah, so it's not possible to criticize work until we have developed a complete alternative ?
The negativity, I feel is on the part of this whole critique. A bunch of guys came up with a tool for themselves and it turned out to be so good that it not only took the software development world by storm, but it pretty much killed all competitors stone dead.
Now it seems as though you’ve got a few moaners who have basically decided that this amazing and free technology isn’t good enough and they can imagine what they want but wouldn’t even begin to know where to begin implementing it.
If you can’t use Git, it’s probably not for you. Other alternatives do exist but they will never match git for features or community activity.
Most of what these people want could be achieved as you suggest, with a simple NFS share and system of folder numbering. Once you go away from the domain of text based code Git becomes a bit pointless ...
> We have this already. It's called collaborative desktops over VNC ...
We still want a revision control system, things like commits and all.
> So you're into collaboration, but not on branches? I would have said branches related to specific units of functionality, streams of development or specific issues.
Depends on the workflow. Many people have long-lived branches, introducing big features/refactorings. Many other prefer short-lived branches, where one branch typically is used by a single person. I still think branches should be focused on topics, but the topic (and thus the branch) must be the same on all computers, instead of having one version locally, another one that is mapped to it but potentially has different content on the server, and 1 different branch per other user. How many times have we had to "oh you pushed on your branch, I have to get it first"
> Definition of branches aside, this is the way old-style centralised VCS like CVS, Subversion actually work - and you can still use SVN if you want to ... or you can use git in that manner and never have to worry about it's more complex details.
Yep, that's the model: one place where people synchronize. The issue with those was not the centralization (look at GitHub), it was the lock mechanism. I can use git to replicate it, or I can use the folder.bak and folder.v1.final on a NAS method. It's not because it's possible that it's desirable
> I'm sorry this is really quite hilarious. Go! Stop whinging and go do it!
Ah, so it's not possible to criticize work until we have developed a complete alternative ?