• rhabarba@feddit.org
    22·
    1 day ago

    Git is quite powerful on its own with version control, diffs, branches, merging, etc.

    All version control systems do that, hence my question.

    Git was conceived as a bazaar (because of its use for the Linux kernel), but most projects are more like cathedrals. In my opinion, Git is simply over-engineered for most projects. For projects that you don’t want to share with others, even CVS would probably suffice…

    • starshipwinepineapple@programming.dev
      5·
      1 day ago

      Well just speaking for myself, i use git without a forge for personal stuff because i was already familiar with git and it fits my needs. No need to learn another version control system for some basic projects i throw together

    • mesa@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 day ago

      The biggest thing git does is one person can get one or many branches (AKA version control) on ANY machine. They all act like they are the source of truth. CVS/Mercurial/etc…all have the issue that they expect to be on one machine as the source of truth. And if that machine ever goes down…

      Before git (ya im old), I used a plethora of services like git. There were times back then when a server was down and the history…was just gone.

      • rhabarba@feddit.org
        31·
        1 day ago

        Mercurial is decentralised, there is no single “source of truth”. (Not counting “upstream”, of course.)

        • mesa@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 day ago

          Huh interesting, maybe it was the way we used it 15-20+ years ago or maybe it changed. No clue. But yes you are correct.

          • rhabarba@feddit.org
            51·
            1 day ago

            Both Mercurial and Git started around the same time as a replacement for BitKeeper - which also was decentralised.