Interesting footnote: the founding of Netscape occurred at the same time I was deciding where to go in industry when I left Berkeley in 1994. Jim Clarke and Marc Andreessen approached me about the possibility of my joining Netscape as a founder, but I eventually decided against it (they hadnāt yet decided to do Web stuff when I talked with them). This is one of the biggest āwhat ifā moments of my career. If I had gone to Netscape, I think thereās a good chance that Tcl would have become the browser language instead of JavaScript and the world would be a different place! However, in retrospect Iām not sure that Tcl would actually be a better language for the Web than JavaScript, so maybe the right thing happened.
Definitely dodged a bullet there. Although on the other hand if it had been TCL thereās pretty much zero chance people would have tolerated it like they have with Javascript so it might have been replaced with something better than both. Who knowsā¦
FizzyOrange@programming.dev
on 12 Apr 08:00
collapse
Tool Command Language. Itās a shitty stringly-typed scripting language from the 80s that took a neat hack (function bodies are string literals) way too far.
Itās a bit less shit than Bash, but shitter than Perl.
Unfortunately the entire EDA industry has decided to use it as their scripting interface, which isnāt too bad in itself - the commands they provide are pretty simple - but unfortunately it leads to people stupidly basing their entire EDA infrastructure on TCL rather than wrapping it in a saner language.
onlinepersona@programming.dev
on 11 Apr 07:34
nextcollapse
It couldāve been mercurial, but Iām glad that didnāt happen. Being shouted at in a mailing-list for fixing a bug doesnāt sound like fun. Also, the amount of CPU resources that would be wasted running a VCS in python would be phenomenal. And have fun trying to develop a project using a separate python version than supported by your python VCS.
Git branches are very different to Mercurial branches. In git theyāre similar to tags that move along with the head commit of that particular branch. In Mercurial every commit contains meta data indicating the branch itās on. It also has a query language that lets you do sone quite neat things with selecting groups of commits based on their metadata, which can be useful in code reviews and similar.
Iāve never used Mercurial, but a simple one based on the explanations and my experience with Git:
Locating the branch a commit originated from.
If a git branch has been merged into (or rebased on) main or another branch, thereās no way to tell which commit came from which branch. But sometimes Iād really like that information to figure out what prompted a certain change. Without it, I need to use external tools like a ticketing system and hope the other developers added in the necessary information.
That seems to be the opposite of useful if a commit is initially pushed to a development branch, which is relatively standard practice; now youāre polluting the tree with data thatās purposefully ephemeral, and even potentially leaking internal information.
Also, Iād argue that such deep details do belong in another tool, rather than asking the source control tool perform triple duty by being a CR and issue tracker as well.
Most of the time youāre right, itās little more than a detail, but sometimes I miss the querying that it allowed. You could ask for things like a list of all branches that branched from a specific parent branch and modified a specific file, Which can be handy when you want to understand the impact a change might have before you make it and try merging.
Having the branch name embedded in the commit means you can meaningfully ask this sort of question. In gitās model you canāt say a changeset is in a specific branch once there are child branches further downstream because the changeset is in all of those branches.
Rather than come up with lots of examples for other queries (I know it wasnāt the focus of your question, but I think itās really neat), I found this page which seems like a reasonable description.
No, git has labels on heads of branches. Once the head moves you loose the information. It also makes for a more messy history, which I believe created the whole ārebase everythingā philosophy to cope.
If I hand you a commit, you cannot tell which ābranchā it is on without searching the git history and hoping that you only get one answer. Thatās a bummer if, for instance, youāre a github action and only get handed the commit. If itās on the master branch, I want to do different things than if itās a dev branch.
Letās say you have a main and a dev branch, and you periodically merge dev into main. Because of fast forwarding (on by default) the main branch is completely gone from the history. If you then add bug fixes and project branches it becomes a tangled mess really quickly and itās nearly impossible to understand the structure by looking at the tree.
On mercurial every branch is named and distinct forever. You donāt have to try to understand what happened to the project since itās obvious by looking at the tree.
Now there are ways to have a clean git history, but afaik you either need to make sure nobody ever messes it up or have everyone rebase everything and only keep the history of the main branch.
When working in a hyper structured organization that may work, but for more casual developers (scientists, students) that arenāt system experts and where you have messy history, mercurial default settings are less confusing, easier to learn and produce better results.
No, merging in git does not make branches disappear.
fartsparkles@lemmy.world
on 11 Apr 08:43
nextcollapse
Mercurial is written in Python, Git in C.
Given the number of git instances, had it been implemented in Python, more CPU cycles / electricity would have been used.
Blah blah Mercurial is responsible for global warming. (Iām being sarcastic by the way - I love Mercurial).
onlinepersona@programming.dev
on 11 Apr 08:46
collapse
Python 10s of multiples more CPU cycles than git. It is an interpreted language: every instruction is read by another process, checked, and then run. Hit on the other hand is executed straight by the CPU. It has at least one layer of indirection less than python (the python interpreter may have multiple). That means it can be slower but it definitely uses more energy.
Since git is so popular, if it were instead mercurial, the energy requirements would be much higher for version control. Whether that will be noticeable on a bill is debatable. I havenāt run the numbers.
Regarding the different python versions. As mentioned before, there is a python interpreter. That interpreter is versioned and so is the python language. Many things are backwards compatible meaning something written in a higher version of the python language can be interpreted by a lower version of the python interpreter. The reverse is also true, so python interpreter with a higher version can interpret a python file using a lower version of the language.
Notice that I put ācanā in bold. Thatās because newer versions can deprecate certain features or parts of the language. So, if youāre writing a project in a different version of python, mercurial may or may not run depending on your version. Resolving that may not be as intuitive as one thinks.
I think those were he points you were referring to when you asked your question?
Glitchvid@lemmy.world
on 11 Apr 13:00
nextcollapse
I donāt think itās hyperbole to say a significant percentage of Git activity happens on GitHub (and other āfoundriesā) ā which are themselves a far cry from efficient.
My ultimate takeaway on the topic is that weāre stuck with Gitās very counterintuitive porcelain, and only satisfactory plumbing, regardless of performance/efficiency; but if Mercurial had won out, weād still have its better interface (and IMO workflow), and any performance problems couldāve been addressed by a rewrite in C (or the Rust one that is so very slowly happening).
onlinepersona@programming.dev
on 11 Apr 17:47
collapse
Imagine if their VCS operations were 10s of times less efficient š
Being shouted at in a mailing-list for fixing a bug doesnāt sound like fun.
Whatās that a reference to?
onlinepersona@programming.dev
on 11 Apr 13:31
collapse
Some instances of one of the mercurial devs being a bully. It was a long time ago and I canāt remember the alias of the dev, but I do remember they had merge or commit rights - whatever those are called in mercurial. It felt like they had their own Linus but different. Whether they are still active or whether they still are like that, I dunno. Certainly hope they changed.
Dunno if the git mailing list was as toxic. Didnāt investigate that.
The biggest tragedy of modern media is that they chose to cast Elon Musk as the real life Tony Stark instead of torvalds who created 2 pieces of truly revolutionary software (with the help of thousands of other engineers ofc)
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 11 Apr 11:19
nextcollapse
Four things went for Musk:
he was rich
he had a passing resemblance to Robert Downey Jr.
he made was closely associated with futuristic hardware (we donāt seem to value revolutionary software the same way as hardware)
he was rich
In all honesty, a lot of solo developers who are directly responsible for the internet as we know it should be getting far more credit than rich ass holes but here we are.
Chakravanti@monero.town
on 11 Apr 16:07
nextcollapse
Look at it. That fuck didnāt do fucking shit but fuck. He also bought shit other people designed and made and put his name on shit he told them to be stupid in certain fucking stupid ways. IDRC what ignorant people say. If you look at real history, he fucked and fucked shit. Oh and sure, he paid a bunch of fancy people to look like they move pretty when speaking about his literal fucking shit. It worked and he paid them to lie about which side of fucking anything he was and/or would be on. If you saw shit up until THAT point, you should have fucking known he was lying. Didnāt matter that he said both. He was lying about everything because he wasnāt anything more than fucking shit, literally.
FizzyOrange@programming.dev
on 11 Apr 16:50
collapse
No not in the same way Tony Stark did. But Tony Stark is imaginary. Obviously nobody can build an electric car or a rocket in the same way that Tony Stark does.
Of all the criticisms of Musk this is the weakest. There are many way more valid onesā¦ for instance:
Heās an arsehole.
He straight up called that diver a paedo, and even paid a scammer to investigate him.
The scummy lottery thing for votes for Trump. I donāt care if it ends up being technically legal, itās clearly immoral.
Selling the promise of FSD for hard cash when it clearly is never going to happen as he claimed. I still donāt know why thereās been no class action suit over that.
Backing proper insane far right groups in Europe. These people are worse than Trump. I wouldnāt say he is backing neonazis, but heās certainly in the vicinity.
Despite all that he clearly has a pretty good handle on engineering and is definitely involved. Heās not just a figurehead.
I know right, people are multidimensional. You can downvote if that blows your mind.
tyler@programming.dev
on 11 Apr 17:04
nextcollapse
Despite all that he clearly has a pretty good handle on engineering and is definitely involved. Heās not just a figurehead.
as far as Iāve read he actually doesnāt, he just pretends to. You can see this in a lot of his interactions with his employees and the public. but yes, people are multidimensional. musk is a good salesman.
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
on 11 Apr 17:27
nextcollapse
I donāt think thatās even true. He just had enough money that he could fail 99 times before succeeding once, and the return from that one was enough that he could fail 999 times before succeeding, and so on.
He just threw money around until enough other people succeeded in big enough ways, and then he claims credit.
tl;dr: you donāt want it directly in the front-center (like the Nissan Leaf) because a minor fender bender will ruin it. Front-driverās side is a good choice that a lot of other manufactures are going to. Elon didnāt want that, because it didnāt line up with his Bel Air garage. So they stuck it in back, but due to the way Tesla Superchargers are laid out, it now means Tesla drivers have to back into the parking space.
chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz
on 11 Apr 21:08
nextcollapse
For me the problem is that he LARPs as Tony Stark and idiots but into it. He pretends to be a smart engineer when he lucked into all of it and is really not all that bright.
Colloidal@programming.dev
on 17 Apr 15:32
collapse
Didnāt he buy Tesla? And isnāt there a team on Space X just to prevent him from doing changes to projects? And didnāt he say the government didnāt use SQL?
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
on 11 Apr 14:41
collapse
Donāt forget:
he was rich
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 11 Apr 17:20
collapse
Donāt forget:
his dad was rich
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
on 11 Apr 17:35
nextcollapse
I mean, letās be thorough. Heās
the rich scion
of a family that made their fortune owning and exploiting emerald mines
in South Africa
during apartheid
Kinda tells you all you need to know about him and his family.
Also his dad fucked and married (edit: correction (side note: fuck me, somehow it was WAY weirder than I had remembered):) fathered not one, but TWO children with his own stepdaughter. No, Iām not kidding.
Colloidal@programming.dev
on 17 Apr 15:36
collapse
Fuuuuck.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
on 17 Apr 15:43
collapse
Yep.
Also, I want to point out that it was actually worse and weirded than I had remembered: i donāt think theyāre married, but theyāve had two kids together, and one of them was intentional.
Made me curious if Torvalds at least got some reward for his work besides gratitude from people who use his stuff. Iām not sure how credible internet estimates of net worth are but looking up āLinus Torvalds net worthā keeps showing me stuff from $50ā$150 million so hey, at least heās (probably) comfortable. Not exactly Tony Stark superhero territory but if he wasnāt rich enough to sit at home and sleep for the rest of his life if he wanted to Iād probably be upset on his behalf for a bit, before I moved onto the next outrage of the day. Glad to see heās well-off.
theotherbelow@lemmynsfw.com
on 11 Apr 08:37
nextcollapse
I believe his goto comment on git is that its current maintainer did/does far more work on git them him.
Handing over maintainership was not a hard choice. It was very much: āThe moment somebody else comes along that I can trust to keep it going, Iāll go back to doing just the kernel.ā
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 11 Apr 10:55
nextcollapse
itās wild just doing git init instead of manually setting up /truck, /tags, and /branch every time.
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
on 11 Apr 22:12
collapse
Iām part of the accounting team in my company, a fucking big corporation, but because Iām not part of the dev or IT department IT dosenāt want to give me access to the azure devops they use. So I had to ask for service desk to install git locally and using it like that.
ABC123itsEASY@lemmy.world
on 12 Apr 00:07
collapse
Principle of least permission. Iām a dev and I still have to ask for temporary permission to even access customer infrastructure to solve production issues. Why should you need access to deployment infrastructure? I would deny you too, especially if your need could be solved by a local install of git.
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
on 12 Apr 02:44
collapse
I think we in the financial department need a devops for us, we write a lot of code that generates a lot of important information for strategic decisions and for regulatory bodies. Iām the only one in the accounting team that knows how to code, but the actuarial team? All of them write code. And all of that code is sparced on butch of directories with _v{n}, _final_version, _post-fix, (copy) and so on. Is completely ridiculous that everything is being moved to Python without a git environment.
Iām a SysAdmin and Iāve met several ācodersā who went thru a coding bootcamp, or even went to college and donāt know about git, less alone how to use itā¦ kinda makes me sad.
threaded - newest
Turned out better than javascript.
I expected someone to say that, and boom first comment lol
Be thankful we got Javascript. We might have had TCL! š±
Definitely dodged a bullet there. Although on the other hand if it had been TCL thereās pretty much zero chance people would have tolerated it like they have with Javascript so it might have been replaced with something better than both. Who knowsā¦
Thanks, I hate it even more
The TV company?
Tool Command Language. Itās a shitty stringly-typed scripting language from the 80s that took a neat hack (function bodies are string literals) way too far.
Itās a bit less shit than Bash, but shitter than Perl.
Unfortunately the entire EDA industry has decided to use it as their scripting interface, which isnāt too bad in itself - the commands they provide are pretty simple - but unfortunately it leads to people stupidly basing their entire EDA infrastructure on TCL rather than wrapping it in a saner language.
It couldāve been mercurial, but Iām glad that didnāt happen. Being shouted at in a mailing-list for fixing a bug doesnāt sound like fun. Also, the amount of CPU resources that would be wasted running a VCS in python would be phenomenal. And have fun trying to develop a project using a separate python version than supported by your python VCS.
Anti Commercial-AI license
Care to explain your comment for a layman?
From my limited experience mercurial is way more intuitive than git. The big one is named branches are a thing instead of an abstraction.
I think itās less user experience and more that mercurial is a lot more demanding hardware wise to do the same rough job?
What do you mean by āare a thing?ā Git has branches.
Git branches are very different to Mercurial branches. In git theyāre similar to tags that move along with the head commit of that particular branch. In Mercurial every commit contains meta data indicating the branch itās on. It also has a query language that lets you do sone quite neat things with selecting groups of commits based on their metadata, which can be useful in code reviews and similar.
That just sounds like an implementation detail.
Can you provide an example of something thatās possible in Mercurial, but not git?
Iāve never used Mercurial, but a simple one based on the explanations and my experience with Git:
Locating the branch a commit originated from. If a git branch has been merged into (or rebased on) main or another branch, thereās no way to tell which commit came from which branch. But sometimes Iād really like that information to figure out what prompted a certain change. Without it, I need to use external tools like a ticketing system and hope the other developers added in the necessary information.
That seems to be the opposite of useful if a commit is initially pushed to a development branch, which is relatively standard practice; now youāre polluting the tree with data thatās purposefully ephemeral, and even potentially leaking internal information.
Also, Iād argue that such deep details do belong in another tool, rather than asking the source control tool perform triple duty by being a CR and issue tracker as well.
Most of the time youāre right, itās little more than a detail, but sometimes I miss the querying that it allowed. You could ask for things like a list of all branches that branched from a specific parent branch and modified a specific file, Which can be handy when you want to understand the impact a change might have before you make it and try merging.
Having the branch name embedded in the commit means you can meaningfully ask this sort of question. In gitās model you canāt say a changeset is in a specific branch once there are child branches further downstream because the changeset is in all of those branches.
Rather than come up with lots of examples for other queries (I know it wasnāt the focus of your question, but I think itās really neat), I found this page which seems like a reasonable description.
No, git has labels on heads of branches. Once the head moves you loose the information. It also makes for a more messy history, which I believe created the whole ārebase everythingā philosophy to cope.
What information is āloosedā when another commit is made to the branch?
If I hand you a commit, you cannot tell which ābranchā it is on without searching the git history and hoping that you only get one answer. Thatās a bummer if, for instance, youāre a github action and only get handed the commit. If itās on the master branch, I want to do different things than if itās a dev branch.
A commit all by itself doesnāt mean as much without context.
Why would I not want to be able to apply a commit to any arbitrary branch?
Also, GitHub is not git - itās based on git. Any shortcomings it may have arenāt necessarily due to a flaw in git.
Luckily a commit points to its parent, which means the context is inherently present. Whatās your point?
Nobody said that.
True enough.
Your claim appears to be that Mercurial binds commits to branches, and Iām explaining how I fail to see the advantage.
It makes the history clearer.
How is a Mercurial commit tree clearer than a git commit tree?
Branches are distinct.
Letās say you have a main and a dev branch, and you periodically merge dev into main. Because of fast forwarding (on by default) the main branch is completely gone from the history. If you then add bug fixes and project branches it becomes a tangled mess really quickly and itās nearly impossible to understand the structure by looking at the tree.
On mercurial every branch is named and distinct forever. You donāt have to try to understand what happened to the project since itās obvious by looking at the tree.
Now there are ways to have a clean git history, but afaik you either need to make sure nobody ever messes it up or have everyone rebase everything and only keep the history of the main branch.
When working in a hyper structured organization that may work, but for more casual developers (scientists, students) that arenāt system experts and where you have messy history, mercurial default settings are less confusing, easier to learn and produce better results.
No, merging in git does not make branches disappear.
Mercurial is written in Python, Git in C.
Given the number of git instances, had it been implemented in Python, more CPU cycles / electricity would have been used.
Blah blah Mercurial is responsible for global warming. (Iām being sarcastic by the way - I love Mercurial).
Python 10s of multiples more CPU cycles than git. It is an interpreted language: every instruction is read by another process, checked, and then run. Hit on the other hand is executed straight by the CPU. It has at least one layer of indirection less than python (the python interpreter may have multiple). That means it can be slower but it definitely uses more energy.
Since git is so popular, if it were instead mercurial, the energy requirements would be much higher for version control. Whether that will be noticeable on a bill is debatable. I havenāt run the numbers.
Regarding the different python versions. As mentioned before, there is a python interpreter. That interpreter is versioned and so is the python language. Many things are backwards compatible meaning something written in a higher version of the python language can be interpreted by a lower version of the python interpreter. The reverse is also true, so python interpreter with a higher version can interpret a python file using a lower version of the language.
Notice that I put ācanā in bold. Thatās because newer versions can deprecate certain features or parts of the language. So, if youāre writing a project in a different version of python, mercurial may or may not run depending on your version. Resolving that may not be as intuitive as one thinks.
I think those were he points you were referring to when you asked your question?
Anti Commercial-AI license
I donāt think itās hyperbole to say a significant percentage of Git activity happens on GitHub (and other āfoundriesā) ā which are themselves a far cry from efficient.
My ultimate takeaway on the topic is that weāre stuck with Gitās very counterintuitive porcelain, and only satisfactory plumbing, regardless of performance/efficiency; but if Mercurial had won out, weād still have its better interface (and IMO workflow), and any performance problems couldāve been addressed by a rewrite in C (or the Rust one that is so very slowly happening).
Imagine if their VCS operations were 10s of times less efficient š
Anti Commercial-AI license
Most of the VCS ops in Hg are actually written in C.
GitHub is mostly written in Ruby, so thatās not really a performance win.
Like I said, weāre stuck with Gitās UX, but we were never stuck with Hgās performance.
Surely it could be rewritten in Fortran if performance is really a concern.
Assembly is the true language of the gods, sir.
Anti Commercial-AI license
Apart from the obvious lack of portability, compilers write better assembly than most humans.
If Mercurial were as popular as Git I would presume that it would be rewritten in C or Rust, but who can say.
Iām sure it could, but no one thinks itās worth their time when Git is right there and does the same job.
Whatās that a reference to?
Some instances of one of the mercurial devs being a bully. It was a long time ago and I canāt remember the alias of the dev, but I do remember they had merge or commit rights - whatever those are called in mercurial. It felt like they had their own Linus but different. Whether they are still active or whether they still are like that, I dunno. Certainly hope they changed.
Dunno if the git mailing list was as toxic. Didnāt investigate that.
Anti Commercial-AI license
In a cave with a box of scrap
The biggest tragedy of modern media is that they chose to cast Elon Musk as the real life Tony Stark instead of torvalds who created 2 pieces of truly revolutionary software (with the help of thousands of other engineers ofc)
Also Subsurface, a scuba diving log program, but that one is not quite as well known.
subsurface-divelog.org
Four things went for Musk:
madewas closely associated with futuristic hardware (we donāt seem to value revolutionary software the same way as hardware)In all honesty, a lot of solo developers who are directly responsible for the internet as we know it should be getting far more credit than rich ass holes but here we are.
Edit: correct
Did he
Yeah Teslas were pretty leading edge at the beginning. Then they started doing weird stuff like removing stalks and making triangular trucks.
Falcon 9 and Starship are obviously futuristic too.
Did he, though?
Look at it. That fuck didnāt do fucking shit but fuck. He also bought shit other people designed and made and put his name on shit he told them to be stupid in certain fucking stupid ways. IDRC what ignorant people say. If you look at real history, he fucked and fucked shit. Oh and sure, he paid a bunch of fancy people to look like they move pretty when speaking about his literal fucking shit. It worked and he paid them to lie about which side of fucking anything he was and/or would be on. If you saw shit up until THAT point, you should have fucking known he was lying. Didnāt matter that he said both. He was lying about everything because he wasnāt anything more than fucking shit, literally.
No not in the same way Tony Stark did. But Tony Stark is imaginary. Obviously nobody can build an electric car or a rocket in the same way that Tony Stark does.
Of all the criticisms of Musk this is the weakest. There are many way more valid onesā¦ for instance:
Despite all that he clearly has a pretty good handle on engineering and is definitely involved. Heās not just a figurehead.
I know right, people are multidimensional. You can downvote if that blows your mind.
as far as Iāve read he actually doesnāt, he just pretends to. You can see this in a lot of his interactions with his employees and the public. but yes, people are multidimensional. musk is a good salesman.
ftfy
I donāt think thatās even true. He just had enough money that he could fail 99 times before succeeding once, and the return from that one was enough that he could fail 999 times before succeeding, and so on.
He just threw money around until enough other people succeeded in big enough ways, and then he claims credit.
Along those lines, consider the decision for why the Model S charge port is where it is, according to Teslaās former chief engineer:
electrek.co/ā¦/teslas-charge-port-location-is-due-ā¦
tl;dr: you donāt want it directly in the front-center (like the Nissan Leaf) because a minor fender bender will ruin it. Front-driverās side is a good choice that a lot of other manufactures are going to. Elon didnāt want that, because it didnāt line up with his Bel Air garage. So they stuck it in back, but due to the way Tesla Superchargers are laid out, it now means Tesla drivers have to back into the parking space.
For me the problem is that he LARPs as Tony Stark and idiots but into it. He pretends to be a smart engineer when he lucked into all of it and is really not all that bright.
Didnāt he buy Tesla? And isnāt there a team on Space X just to prevent him from doing changes to projects? And didnāt he say the government didnāt use SQL?
Donāt forget:
Donāt forget:
I mean, letās be thorough. Heās
Kinda tells you all you need to know about him and his family.
Also his dad fucked and
married(edit: correction (side note: fuck me, somehow it was WAY weirder than I had remembered):) fathered not one, but TWO children with his own stepdaughter. No, Iām not kidding.Edit 2: nope, they married in the 90s too! You canāt make this shit up.
Wait whatā½
Yep.
And that was my reaction when I discovered that too š«©
Fuuuuck.
Yep.
Also, I want to point out that it was actually worse and weirded than I had remembered: i donāt think theyāre married, but theyāve had two kids together, and one of them was intentional.
Yep.
Wow.
Edit: hahahahahaha fucking hell they got married in the 90s too
A distinction without a difference
Made me curious if Torvalds at least got some reward for his work besides gratitude from people who use his stuff. Iām not sure how credible internet estimates of net worth are but looking up āLinus Torvalds net worthā keeps showing me stuff from $50ā$150 million so hey, at least heās (probably) comfortable. Not exactly Tony Stark superhero territory but if he wasnāt rich enough to sit at home and sleep for the rest of his life if he wanted to Iād probably be upset on his behalf for a bit, before I moved onto the next outrage of the day. Glad to see heās well-off.
I believe his goto comment on git is that its current maintainer did/does far more work on git them him.
Thank god for that dude.
Priorities
Compare that with someone who wants the appearance of creating/maintaining something, without actually contributing musk of anythingā¦
Nice
itās wild just doing git init instead of manually setting up /truck, /tags, and /branch every time.
Iām part of the accounting team in my company, a fucking big corporation, but because Iām not part of the dev or IT department IT dosenāt want to give me access to the azure devops they use. So I had to ask for service desk to install git locally and using it like that.
Principle of least permission. Iām a dev and I still have to ask for temporary permission to even access customer infrastructure to solve production issues. Why should you need access to deployment infrastructure? I would deny you too, especially if your need could be solved by a local install of git.
I think we in the financial department need a devops for us, we write a lot of code that generates a lot of important information for strategic decisions and for regulatory bodies. Iām the only one in the accounting team that knows how to code, but the actuarial team? All of them write code. And all of that code is sparced on butch of directories with _v{n}, _final_version, _post-fix, (copy) and so on. Is completely ridiculous that everything is being moved to Python without a git environment.
Iām a SysAdmin and Iāve met several ācodersā who went thru a coding bootcamp, or even went to college and donāt know about git, less alone how to use itā¦ kinda makes me sad.