undefined | Better HN

0 pointstsimionescu5y ago0 comments

Absolutely agree! Coming from P4 to Git, Git is just constantly getting in the way.

I need to make more decisions because of its limitations (single repo or one repo per module? Or maybe use submodules somehow? With P4, we had a single repo with all of the code of the entire organization).

Should I rebase or merge? Or squash commits? Should I cherry pick onto a new branch?

If I want to checkout a new branch while I have work in progress, do I commit it and later amend or revert, or do I stash it? Or do I rely on autostash?

Do I push directly to main, or do I rely on pull requests? Should those merge or squash commits?

I understand that all of these options and concepts make sense for distributed orgs, like the Linux kernel dev community and many other opensource projects. But I don't understand why so many traditional organizations are adopting Git. Its model is way too complex for the way normal orgs work (1 centralized server as the source of truth for the whole project), and it has serious limitations for anything which isn't pure code and isn't carefully curated.

0 comments

PaulDavisThe1st5y ago

>Should I rebase or merge? Or squash commits? Should I cherry pick onto a new branch?

From my perspective, these are policy decisions that need to be made by some "management-ish" level. Git provides the mechanism to do all of them. It's up to you/your organization to decide how to work.

In the open source project that I run (20 years, 75+ developers over time, 400-500k LOC) we all have a clear understanding of (e.g.) whether to merge or rebase. On the odd occasions that there's a lack of clarity, it's normally a great sign that it doesn't matter.

The fact the you would be asking those questions suggests to me that the necessary policy-level decisions have not been made (or have not been made clear).

tsimionescuOP5y ago

I'm not saying this is a decision every dev has to make. I am complaining about having to make these decisions as a team or team lead. Having choices is only nice if there are important use cases where each choice is useful, and if the difference is big enough. Otherwise, the choices are just adding complexity and buyer's remorse.

For most unitary organizations, some of the options that git gives you make no sense at all. That doesn't mean git should change, it means that it's not a great tool for unitary organizations.

Note that some of the choices (e.g. stash vs commit) are choices that each dev has to make individually, and some are pure incidental complexity.

allarm5y ago

So git gives you too much freedom, that’s what your complain is about? I find it hilarious.

2 more replies

bmitc5y ago

Those are hard decisions to make in organically developed organizations like companies.

Part of the problem is that Git, to make it manageable, requires all of these types of concerns and decisions to be addressed, and secondly, it has somehow become the only standard that people have even heard of. There isn't even a decision about which system to use anymore.

Having used both, I still prefer Perforce over Git. And if it were up to me, I would take a step back and investigate other offerings like Plastic SCM. But trying to make these decisions is nearly impossible now that Git is treated as a given.

mikeyjk5y ago

I seriously disagree. Branching models are one of the few things that can be decided upon at short notice. It shouldn't be changed every day, but going from merge commits to rebasing is not going to prevent anyone from working. The VCS history will just look confusing temporarily.

f1refly5y ago

Coming from p4 to git, I thanked the heavens for not having to use this piece of garbage anymore! File locks? Multiple changelists? God forbid that one colleague who checked out some file went on vacation, neverending fun talking to admins of the server to do something about that! Rebasing commits? Own branches? Own repos? Nope!

tsimionescuOP5y ago

I miss multiple changelists so much! I very often am working on a longer feature when I also get some small bug, and it's so nice to organize that into a separate changelist.

Also, file locks are awesome if you're working with binary files (a thing that P4, unlike Git, can actually do), or even when doing a big refactoring that you know will cause conflicts with any other change. Otherwise, at least on our server, we very rarely used them (ignoring the temporary lock just as you're submitting code).

I'm not sure what you mean about rebasing. The basic P4 workflow is equivalent to `git pull --rebase`. In fact, it's pretty hard NOT to rebase in P4.

Also, why is your own branch useful actually? Nevermind your own repo? You can always just keep multiple copies of the code if you really want to.

Also, with P4 you don't have to cleanup your whole working set just to switch branch - it's just a `cd` away!

Of course, different strokes for different folks and all that.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointstsimionescu5y ago0 comments

Absolutely agree! Coming from P4 to Git, Git is just constantly getting in the way.

Should I rebase or merge? Or squash commits? Should I cherry pick onto a new branch?

If I want to checkout a new branch while I have work in progress, do I commit it and later amend or revert, or do I stash it? Or do I rely on autostash?

Do I push directly to main, or do I rely on pull requests? Should those merge or squash commits?

0 comments

PaulDavisThe1st5y ago

>Should I rebase or merge? Or squash commits? Should I cherry pick onto a new branch?

The fact the you would be asking those questions suggests to me that the necessary policy-level decisions have not been made (or have not been made clear).

tsimionescuOP5y ago

For most unitary organizations, some of the options that git gives you make no sense at all. That doesn't mean git should change, it means that it's not a great tool for unitary organizations.

Note that some of the choices (e.g. stash vs commit) are choices that each dev has to make individually, and some are pure incidental complexity.

allarm5y ago

So git gives you too much freedom, that’s what your complain is about? I find it hilarious.

2 more replies

bmitc5y ago

Those are hard decisions to make in organically developed organizations like companies.

mikeyjk5y ago

f1refly5y ago

tsimionescuOP5y ago

I miss multiple changelists so much! I very often am working on a longer feature when I also get some small bug, and it's so nice to organize that into a separate changelist.

I'm not sure what you mean about rebasing. The basic P4 workflow is equivalent to `git pull --rebase`. In fact, it's pretty hard NOT to rebase in P4.

Also, why is your own branch useful actually? Nevermind your own repo? You can always just keep multiple copies of the code if you really want to.

Also, with P4 you don't have to cleanup your whole working set just to switch branch - it's just a `cd` away!

Of course, different strokes for different folks and all that.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse