Comments by "Mikko Rantalainen" (@MikkoRantalainen) on "" video.

  1. 3
  2. 1
  3. 10:20 I think this viewpoint is simply false. Since good IDEs can show last commit that modified each line, you can nowadays have line accurate description of why each line exists in the source code without having human written comments in the source code! However, if you fail to write proper commit messages (documenting why the code is needed), you can never achieve this level. And if you write proper atomic commits with proper commit messages, you always rebase and never merge your own code and everything will be fine. And if you're pulling remote branch and it can be merged conflict free you can do real merge if you really want. If there's a conflict, do not even try to make a merge but tell the submitter to rebase, test again and send another pull request. The single biggest issue remaining after Git is handling huge binary blobs. If you want to have all the offline capabilities that Git has, you cannot do anything better but just copy all the binary blobs to every repository and if you have lots of binary blobs, you'll soon run out of storage. If you opt to having binary blobs on server only, you cannot access those in offline situations or when the network is too slow to be practical for given binary blob. 12:20 This wouldn't be a source control system, it's just a fancy backup system. The problem discussed here is total skill issue only. I personally use Git with feature branches for even single developer hobby projects and I spend maybe 10–20 seconds extra per branch total.
    1