On 2019-04-18 22:18, Andrew Cagney wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 15:52, Johnny Billquist <bqt%update.uu.se@localhost> wrote:Why do you insist on the "at the same time"? It can be at any time, and the problem is the same.there are various tricks to reduce the window; but yes
Thanks. :-)
With ACID, since the second developer's change gets rejected, they can be rest assured that things didn't break.git instead goes even more crazy. You have your local copy, which might be totally out of sync with the master, and you might be doing all kind of changes, and then when you sync up with the master, you have all kind of conflicts on files that have been changed by both, but files that have only been changed by one side will happily pass through, and you actually have the exact same situation you are complaining about. So git does absolutely nothing to solve this.And after all this, no matter how much of a mess is created, it is still all local. The developer gets to decide if it should be pushed, and if they do, wear the consequences.
Right. And someone have to wear the consequences if they use any other VCS as well.
(The scenario isn't unique to CVS and svn - just start hacking on an out-of-date source; however with git at least I've got tools such as 'git rebase --abort' so that if there's a snafu I can back out - something I can't easly do with CVS and only with write privileges with SVN)
Exactly. It's a problem everywhere.And the various tools in git can just as easily also lead to to strange states that are neigh impossible to recover from with less than making a new clone.
To each his own, as usual. But so far I have not found anything really positive with git. For me it really is the last weapon of choice.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt%softjar.se@localhost || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol