|
It was a merge conflict, and VS code's interface to handle them is infuriating. It kept staging my changes and I couldn't seem to get it to accept my overrides to the merges. I didn't expect the "grr" commit to actually commit. Keep in mind I had already tried to commit unsuccessfully several times by then. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
That explains it  I still think one of my best time investments was learning git on the command line. It seems like every git tool has issues like this.
|
|
|
|
|
I've learned it but it never seems to stick. I always wind up having to google what I need to do.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough. I was the "git master" for a year on a project so it was my job to resolve any repo issues and a lot of the common stuff ended up sticking for me. I still use git-scm for reference though 
|
|
|
|
|
To me it seems to be every GIT tool and GIT itself.
Obligatory XKCD[^].
|
|
|
|
|
I've been that friend in the hover text That is way too accurate. It really is pretty simple though! Honest!
|
|
|
|
|
Many years ago I made an in depth comparison between GIT and Mercurial. I chose mercurial and have never looked back, it just works.
I keep hearing people at places complain about GIT messing up, while the main complaint about Mercurial is that it isn't GIT. 
Anyway, sooner or later I will have to give in, GIT is winning on pure inertia.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sticking with Git because of it's "market" saturation. Basically, everyone uses it.
That means that
1. It's not going anywhere
2. Most major IDEs and code editors support it, if badly at times
3. If something *does* go wrong, there's a lot of pressure on Microsoft to fix it due to the size of the userbase
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
That's it.
Except for point 3 which only applies to Github and still won't explain Office.
|
|
|
|
|
That's fair.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I've done some digging around because I've never heard of Mercurial before. They seem pretty similar to be honest. Many of the common commands are the same and many of the flags for those commands are the same. The big difference I can see at the moment is the branching strategy. Since named branches in Mercurial are permanent, it seems like you could really bloat a repo over time with nonsense unless you're super careful about primarily using bookmarks. But then you lose the multi-head ability of branches which seems like the big feature that makes Mercurial "easy to use" since it let's you ignore what in git would be a FETCH_HEAD merge on pull. I can see where this would also cause issues down the road though - you have to remember to merge eventually.
Overall I'm always of the mindset that if it meets your needs then go for it, seems like a solid DVCS, but personally I think I like the direction git is going. The newer sparse-index and sparse-checkout features are really cool even though at the moment I'm not working on any monolithic repos large enough to feel the benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
Jon McKee wrote: you have to remember to merge eventually.
Default setting is that you can't push without merging first.
It's obviously a different mindset, but if you haven't gotten stuck in the "GIT thinking" it's actually easier.
Remember, branches aren't the same things.
But as you say, the capabilities are very similar.
There's a really good primer on the differences here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
That was a really good read. Highly recommended to anyone scrolling through these comments. I still think git isn't as complex as people make it out to be though. Aside from plumbing commands that the majority of people will never touch, the git commands are just operations on four basic structures - tags, commits, trees, and blobs - across three "copies" of the repo - working directory, index/staging area, and the local repo. And a lot of those commands are just common combinations of simpler commands.
Next time I'm starting a new personal project I might try out Mercurial though. Can't knock it 'til you try it 
|
|
|
|
|
Jon McKee wrote: Next time I'm starting a new personal project I might try out Mercurial though
I probably wouldn't bother, Codewitch hit the nail on the fact that GIT is supported directly in VS as well as a load of other tools.
There still are quite a few places using Mercurial last time I looked (Mozilla, facebook and Stack overflow to mention a few) but they are slowly getting fewer.
And now that I remembered that SO uses HG I also remembered that Joel Spolsky wrote a Mercurial tutorial that used to live at hginit.com. That link is dead now, but the site has gotten a new life at, tada, Github[^]
That's also a good read. But it was written in 2005 and is probably slightly outdated in some details.
BTW, using the extension hg-git allows you to use mercurial as a client to a git repository (that's how similar they actually are). and for that reason they have created a GitConcepts - Mercurial[^] which includes a comparison of concepts and a Command equivalence table.
Anyway, if I haven't scared you enough yet I should mention that I never use the CLI.
I exclusively use GUI via TortoiseHg[^] which contains everything you need in one package.
|
|
|
|
|
I started with SVN. Then when I went looking for a distributed system I moved to Mercurial for the same reasons you listed. I only switched to GIT because Visual Studio supported it and I succumbed to peer pressure. I've been on too many technical islands in my career.
|
|
|
|
|
Hahahaha it's funny 'cuz it's true!
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Because no one dares touch it...?
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest I use so much metaprogramming and template specializations throughout you're not entirely off base.
It's necessary to provide the kinds of features and flexibility GFX provides in a manner fast enough for these little MCUs to handle what it is throwing at it.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
New research has shown that the most used language in programming is profanity.
I'll get my b**** a** g****** coat.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm well versed and use it regularly.
The less you need, the more you have.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At least I think it is the server, currently I am using Arvixe purely as a domain and email server. Windows 10 mail client, outlook on the phone and gmail (as a backup client) everywhere.
Mail (the win 10 version) recently stopped sending mail, incoming was fine. I reset the client and 2 weeks worth mail suddenly arrived in various peoples inboxes. Now as paranoia set in I am checking multiple clients and finding missing emails from the arvixe domain.
So I purchased MS365 only to learn it no longer supports anything but outlook and gmail accounts - cancelled subscription instantly.
So I am now trying to decide whether to get another client or chuck arvixe for ASP.NET Core Blazor Hosting[^]
So advice from the hive mind would be appreciated.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
I'll tell you what I've told my good friend a number of times (once even, regarding his use of an old email service) - when you start having to look over your shoulder while using something, or when you spend more time working against it than working with it, it's time to move on.
Email is critical, so I think the "looking over your shoulder" bit applies here. The question becomes, what's peace of mind worth to you? If gmail accounts and outlook accounts work everywhere, then maybe it pays to go with the flow, especially if you already have said accounts.
I keep my email simple, over a very public broadly accessible (and reliable) service and I've only had serious delivery issues twice in over a decade, and each time they were resolved within 48 hours.
That's worth it to me. The downside of such a public service is no matter how reliable a service, it becomes a honeypot as a consequence, so there's always the question of it getting cracked, but then that's true of anything. Everything is potentially a target. On balance, I find the reliability of a large public email service beats the security concerns it ostensibly raises.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
