Lena@gregtech.eu to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 2 days agoGithub > youtubegregtech.euexternal-linkmessage-square39fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkGithub > youtubegregtech.euLena@gregtech.eu to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square39fedilink
minus-squareprettybunnys@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 day agoBetter in what way? There are certainly others but … git is the defacto standard for a reason. There are certainly use cases for others, just wondering what you mean?
minus-squarerhabarba@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 day ago Git is for bazaar-style development. However, most of my own projects are cathedral-style. Git’s default user experience (CLI command syntax, for example) is weird. There are reasons why Git GUIs are popular and (e.g.) SVN GUIs never were. Git is rather spammy in terms of hard disk usage.
minus-squaregimmemahlulz@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·edit-223 hours ago> says there are better back ends > Doesn’t list a single one nor how they’re better
minus-squareSpaceNoodle@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 day ago Nothing is preventing git from being used for cathedral development. Nothing is preventing you from using any of the plethora of frontends available. If all of your projects are a single file, you have much deeper problems than selecting source control.
Better in what way?
There are certainly others but … git is the defacto standard for a reason.
There are certainly use cases for others, just wondering what you mean?
> says there are better back ends
> Doesn’t list a single one nor how they’re better
Nothing is preventing git from being used for cathedral development.
Nothing is preventing you from using any of the plethora of frontends available.
If all of your projects are a single file, you have much deeper problems than selecting source control.