Starward Rogue Update 1.016: The Ricochet Sequel

[Pumpkin]

rt-click > svn > log > search > Misery

I heard SVN is crap. Well, I don't know, just a coworker / friend said that at the office. I only use git from time to time and don't know anything about SVN, below that some people dislike it. So if I understand, Arcen uses it. What do you guys think of it?

[keith.lamothe]

What do you guys think of it?

It works.

[x4000]

What do you guys think of it?

It works.

And it's straightforward, which I also like.  I mean, in a generalized sense.  If you're doing a lot of branches and forks, it might not be the easiest thing, I'm not sure -- but we don't really do that.  In terms of diffs, merges, logs, commits, etc, etc, it's sensible and does what it says on the tin.

I've had to use Git more recently, and I absolutely loathe it.  Everything is a lot more complicated and slow just to do the same thing, and it has some extra restrictions like no empty directories being checked in, etc.  At the moment we are using the SVN frontend for Github for our new (very very large in GB senses) projects, and we're still using the native-svn Repositoryhosting.com for all our other stuff.

In the past I've used MS SourceSafe, which was an absolute nightmare and is a dinosaur by now of course.  I've never used mercurial, and have not felt a real compelling need to do so.  SVN works and is familiar, and so unless there's a place where we can get cheaper mercurial hosting than we do svn hosting, there's really no incentive for us to change anything.

There's just never a point where we're using svn and we go "man that's too complicated" or "I wish I could do x."  It's kind of like asking me how I like my pencil.  I mean, it writes and that's pretty much all I'm looking for from it.  It probably doesn't write on metal or underwater or whatever, but I've never even tried those things and have no reason to, so any pencil that is feature-laden with extra complexity for those sorts of use cases would just add pointless frustration.

[Cinth]

What do you guys think of it?

It works.

And it's straightforward, which I also like.  I mean, in a generalized sense.  If you're doing a lot of branches and forks, it might not be the easiest thing, I'm not sure -- but we don't really do that.  In terms of diffs, merges, logs, commits, etc, etc, it's sensible and does what it says on the tin.

I've had to use Git more recently, and I absolutely loathe it.  Everything is a lot more complicated and slow just to do the same thing, and it has some extra restrictions like no empty directories being checked in, etc.  At the moment we are using the SVN frontend for Github for our new (very very large in GB senses) projects, and we're still using the native-svn Repositoryhosting.com for all our other stuff.

In the past I've used MS SourceSafe, which was an absolute nightmare and is a dinosaur by now of course.  I've never used mercurial, and have not felt a real compelling need to do so.  SVN works and is familiar, and so unless there's a place where we can get cheaper mercurial hosting than we do svn hosting, there's really no incentive for us to change anything.

There's just never a point where we're using svn and we go "man that's too complicated" or "I wish I could do x."  It's kind of like asking me how I like my pencil.  I mean, it writes and that's pretty much all I'm looking for from it.  It probably doesn't write on metal or underwater or whatever, but I've never even tried those things and have no reason to, so any pencil that is feature-laden with extra complexity for those sorts of use cases would just add pointless frustration.

Will add that it is easy to use.  As someone who has never before had call to do anything like what I'm doing now, I'm thankful it's straightforward.

You want a Space Pen though.  Those things are just awesome.  Writes everywhere at any angle, hot and cold.  I miss mine

[Misery]

I'm not Arcen, but my own thoughts on SVN after my limited use of it is basically:  I click on it and it does something, the computer doesnt explode, so it's good.

There, helpful input, you're welcome.

[ptarth]

I'm not Arcen, but my own thoughts on SVN after my limited use of it is basically:  I click on it and it does something, the computer doesnt explode, so it's good.

There, helpful input, you're welcome.

So it's like a dating sim?

[Misery]

Always with the dating sims around here!   What is it about this place and those being mentioned so much?

I sense a conspiracy of some sort.

[TheVampire100]

Always with the dating sims around here!   What is it about this place and those being mentioned so much?

I sense a conspiracy of some sort.

I think the general joke is that Steam has currently an uprising in those games (and other stores as well). They are recently very popular.
I see at least once day a new dating sim/visual appearing on steam.

[Misery]

Always with the dating sims around here!   What is it about this place and those being mentioned so much?

I sense a conspiracy of some sort.

I think the general joke is that Steam has currently an uprising in those games (and other stores as well). They are recently very popular.
I see at least once day a new dating sim/visual appearing on steam.

Ugh, noticed that.   Tired of the damn thing.

[x4000]

Two things you're unlikely to ever see from Arcen, genre-wise, are a sports game or a dating sim, so I think that's also the joke.

Though a sports dating sim... that could be fun.

KICKER: (American) football, will you go on a date with me?

FOOTBALL: I have been much abused on the field of late.  Where would you take me?

KICKER: I know we are only at the 40 yard line, but I am hoping to take you to the field goal.

FOOTBALL: Roll for initiative.

REFEREE: The kick was good!

+3 points to your team.
-10 favor with the other team.

[crazyroosterman]

Two things you're unlikely to ever see from Arcen, genre-wise, are a sports game or a dating sim, so I think that's also the joke.

Though a sports dating sim... that could be fun.

KICKER: (American) football, will you go on a date with me?

FOOTBALL: I have been much abused on the field of late.  Where would you take me?

KICKER: I know we are only at the 40 yard line, but I am hoping to take you to the field goal.

FOOTBALL: Roll for initiative.

REFEREE: The kick was good!

+3 points to your team.
-10 favor with the other team.

so long as your all robots not even joking it would make it way more interesting.

[x4000]

Haha, I'm sure.

[Draco18s]

I'm not Arcen, but my own thoughts on SVN after my limited use of it is basically:  I click on it and it does something, the computer doesnt explode, so it's good.

Anyway:
Git is only complicated because no one's made a satisfactory GUI for it and the manual was written by people who expect you to have read the manual.

What SVN ("SVN" to me means the same thing as "SDK": Which one are you referring to?*) lacks that Git supports it branching.  Tortoise doesn't really understand that you might want to fork a project to do Naughty Things to the source code (read: "new features"), but keep the main branch for fixing bugs (fast patching without shipping possibly broken code).

Tortoise was like, "Yeah....just copy the project (the file and its directory structure) to a new location and name it something different." Which is not real branching.  It's "How branching was done before we had source control software: copy the project to new location" type of fork.

*I've had four recruiters in the last week as me if I "have experience with SDK."  And my response is "Which software development kit?" And their answer is roughly, "Any? Just name some" and I rattle off, "iOS, Oculus Rift, Kinect, Minecraft, and FinancialEdge."

[Pumpkin]

Thank you for the SVN/Git stuff. I wasn't expecting so much answers. I'll try SVN, one day. I just have to add I use only basic Git functions (commit, push, pull, branch and merge) and I find it pretty simple. I guess simplicity is, for a big part, a question of being accustomed or not.

Thanks a lot.

[Hearteater]

The big difference between Git and SVN is decentralization. See this Stack Overflow answer:
Git is not better than Subversion. But is also not worse. It's different.

The key difference is that it is decentralized. Imagine you are a developer on the road, you develop on your laptop and you want to have source control so that you can go back 3 hours.

With Subversion, you have a Problem: The SVN Repository may be in a location you can't reach (in your company, and you don't have internet at the moment), you cannot commit. If you want to make a copy of your code, you have to literally copy/paste it.

With Git, you do not have this problem. Your local copy is a repository, and you can commit to it and get all benefits of source control. When you regain connectivity to the main repository, you can commit against it.

This looks good at first, but just keep in mind the added complexity to this approach.

Git seems to be the "new, shiny, cool" thing. It's by no means bad (there is a reason Linus wrote it for the Linux Kernel development after all), but I feel that many people jump on the "Distributed Source Control" train just because it's new and is written by Linus Torvalds, without actually knowing why/if it's better.

Subversion has Problems, but so does Git, Mercurial, CVS, TFS or whatever.

<<Read More>>