Yeah
-
SVN is still great if there is a need for strict access controls and central control matters a lot. Auditing is also a bit easier with SVN.
It caters more for a linear workflow, though. So modern large teams won't find joy with SVN.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It caters more for a linear workflow, though. So modern large teams won't find joy with SVN
For what it's worth, I work at a FAANG company and we don't use branches at all. Instead, we use feature flags. Source control history is linear with no merges.
All code changes have to go though code review before they can be committed to the main repo. Pull requests are usually not too large (we aim for ~300 lines max), contain a single commit, aren't long-lived (often merged the same day they're submitted unless they're very controversial), can be stacked to handle dependencies between them ("stacked diffs"), and a whole stack can be landed together. When merged, everything is committed directly to the main branch, which all developers are working off of.
I know that both Google and Meta take this approach, and probably other companies too.
-
Reject GitHub. Embrace Codeberg!
I would love a subscription to Codeberg to be able to store private projects though. Codeberg is nice but you need an alternative for those special projects and it's annoying.
-
The bottom picture should be SVN. I miss incremental revision numbers.
The mixed-revisions bug was fun... Also cannot clean history or make shitty branches everywhere, it was one of my worst experience. Nowadays Jujutsu is my favorite.
-
This post did not contain any content.
You don't need GitHub for Git.
-
The bottom picture should be SVN. I miss incremental revision numbers.
git rev-list HEAD | wc -l -
It caters more for a linear workflow, though. So modern large teams won't find joy with SVN
For what it's worth, I work at a FAANG company and we don't use branches at all. Instead, we use feature flags. Source control history is linear with no merges.
All code changes have to go though code review before they can be committed to the main repo. Pull requests are usually not too large (we aim for ~300 lines max), contain a single commit, aren't long-lived (often merged the same day they're submitted unless they're very controversial), can be stacked to handle dependencies between them ("stacked diffs"), and a whole stack can be landed together. When merged, everything is committed directly to the main branch, which all developers are working off of.
I know that both Google and Meta take this approach, and probably other companies too.
Trunk based dev is GOAT.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Armatures!
Project. New
Project.new.new -
I would love a subscription to Codeberg to be able to store private projects though. Codeberg is nice but you need an alternative for those special projects and it's annoying.
If you work alone you can just use git local without a remote repo. Otherwise there is always self hosting forgejo (the software behind Codeberg). But I also expect there to be other hosting services for that purpose.
-
But how often do you need that for your personal projects? I just have a git repo on a server that's accessible by ssh. I only use a web frontend when I have to share with other people and then you might as well use a free third party service.
You don't need it on a server even. For simple versioning just use a local git repo without any bells and stuff
-
Python 27??? Does tech in the future go full circle and starts to look like windows XP again?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Neither. Version control and remote sync to your self hosted gitlab or gitea, or whatever (or no remote at all if you wanna go gambling with your hard drive).
-
This post did not contain any content.
I prefer reading my code out loud and saving it as a Audio file
-
You don't need it on a server even. For simple versioning just use a local git repo without any bells and stuff
One of the most useful features is rolling back from origin when you've borked your local repo (not that I ever have.............)
-
It caters more for a linear workflow, though. So modern large teams won't find joy with SVN
For what it's worth, I work at a FAANG company and we don't use branches at all. Instead, we use feature flags. Source control history is linear with no merges.
All code changes have to go though code review before they can be committed to the main repo. Pull requests are usually not too large (we aim for ~300 lines max), contain a single commit, aren't long-lived (often merged the same day they're submitted unless they're very controversial), can be stacked to handle dependencies between them ("stacked diffs"), and a whole stack can be landed together. When merged, everything is committed directly to the main branch, which all developers are working off of.
I know that both Google and Meta take this approach, and probably other companies too.
This makes me happy.
-
I would love a subscription to Codeberg to be able to store private projects though. Codeberg is nice but you need an alternative for those special projects and it's annoying.
can’t you set codeberg repositories to private?
-
This post did not contain any content.
It’s a small thing but I appreciate how you didn’t use the image of the rapper of the original meme who seems like an overall terrible person.
-
One of the most useful features is rolling back from origin when you've borked your local repo (not that I ever have.............)
I'm not that accustomed with it myself, so my question: how can you bork your local repo so you can't roll back? Did you tinker in the .git folder? xD
-
Armatures!
Project. New
Project.new.newProject.new.new.final.2
