My most sincere apologies to Virginia Woolf for the title.
We use a lot of git at work, and I've earned a bit of a reputation as "the git guy," both at work and amongst the folks who read the blog. So, I suppose it should come as no surprise that a coworker (hi stan!) said "You should write something about using git when it's just one person." And I said "well sure, but it's not nearly as interesting as you think it's going to be." He didn't seem to mind, so here I am.
Lets back up for a second.
Git is a tool that programmers use to facilitate collaboration. It stores versions of computer code (and associated file) and save incremental sets of changes to those files, so that programmers can easily experiment with changes without destroying code, and so that teams of programmers (sometimes even large teams) can all work and develop on a single code base without stepping on eachothers toes, or duplicating efforts because you end up working on different versions of the code.
Git makes a number of innovations that make version control with git much preferable (at least in my experience) to other tools, but fundamentally that's what git does. Git has all sorts of innovations that make it awesome: it's fast, it can take "diverged branches" and merge them together painlessly and almost automatically. It's great and mind bending, and I think really forces us to rethink all sorts of assumptions about authorship, and the coherency of "texts" in general.
But I'm famous for using git all alone, with just me. Here are the lessons and conclusions that I'd draw from my experiences over the past... two or three (or so) years of using git:
- Use fewer features. Git can do all sorts of funny stuff with branches and merges, but the truth is that when you're working alone you don't really want to have to much with branches. Because they're the really novel feature (at least in terms of their usability) in git, everyone wants to use them but they add complexity, and there are other approaches to managing files and content with git that are probably preferable.
- Resist the temptation to store binary files in git. It'll work, but you won't be really happy with it.
- Even though you don't need to have a remote repository to push your git repositories to, keep an off site repository in almost every case. You get incremental backups for free with git, and remote back ups are nearly free.
- Use a tool like gitosis (but it's probably in your distribution's repository and you should use that version) to manage repositories. It's overkill for your use-case, but it makes things easier in terms of creating repositories. Perhaps consider something like girocco if you want even more overkill, and more web-based interface.
- There are git tools for most text editors and graphical tools that you may choose to use, but don't, at least until you understand what's going on behind the scenes. Learn git commands, and do stuff from the command line, as you'll be much better (in the long term,) at fixing things as issues come up.
- If you need to maintain multiple machines, think of each machine as a collaborator, and it's probably easiest to have a centralized group of repositories that you can push to in order to keep these machines up to date.
- If you're using git to manage configuration files (which is great) I strongly recommend having a "sub-home" directory in a git repository with your configuration files with symbolic links pointing to the files in the repository. This strikes me as towing the balance between utility and control, without being a total pain the ass. As it were.
And that's about it.