Timeline for I'm a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 9, 2012 at 21:16 | comment | added | gbjbaanb | actually, it sounds like this: randyfay.com/content/avoiding-git-disasters-gory-story nice, non-critical article about what can go wrong with a git repo if you don't know what you're doing. | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 17:02 | comment | added | philosodad | It sounds like people pulled the changes, then actually deleted the changes they got from the server when merging (which is possible). Of course, the changeset from the server is still there, so you can reset the repository to the state it was in before their changes. | |
| Jul 2, 2012 at 10:00 | comment | added | Juozas Kontvainis | @naught101: actually, my company has that setting enabled. What happens is that programmer commits his changes locally, then tries push. He gets a response from server that he needs merge before he can push. He gets updates from the server and tries to make a merge commit. At this point I don't know exactly how those persons made a merge commit but on several occasions that merge commit basically erased the changes they got from server. | |
| Jul 1, 2012 at 3:48 | comment | added | naught101 | @JuozasKontvainis: I don't know mercurial very well, but in git you can disallow pushes that include merges that don't have HEAD as a parent, which prevents users pushing changes that don't have the most recent changes from master included. I'm sure there's something similar in mercurial. | |
| Feb 16, 2012 at 10:38 | comment | added | Juozas Kontvainis | Actually I would propose this argument as against DCVS. My company recently switched to Mercurial from CVS. People are erasing other peoples changes during merges way more often when on CVS. | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 15:20 | history | answered | philosodad | CC BY-SA 2.5 |