I've never understood the popularity of git. It may be useful for open source by supporting distributed development but it seems far less useful for a traditional corporate environment. SVN just makes far more sense to me in terms of command structure. If I wanted a DVCS I would probably go with Mercurial. Git is just awful.
I confess to being a fan of git, but perhaps it's simply because I had worked for a long time without proper source control before discovering git- but I'm actually curious what is awful about it? I'm definitely open to switching to something better, but from my perspective, git is easy enough, it's great for working away from the vpn / traveling, and with github it's super easy to share and find good projects (sourceforge for example is so ugly and ad-ridden)
discovering git- but I'm actually curious what is awful about it?
Linus's decision to screw over everyone that has ever used SCM by refusing to use normal terms is the most awful part. Instead, as he admitted, he just randomly assigned words to concepts. For example, he randomly picked the word checkout to mean revert. Ditto using the word reset to mean unstage. "git pull" refuses to update the source like a normal system would. Instead you have to do the "git stash; git stash apply stash@{0}" dance. And stash/unstash is not standard in the first place since Bazaar,
For example, he randomly picked the word checkout to mean revert
That choice actually makes sense from the Git model. A Subversion person would ask why there is one command for three+ different things (svn revert, svn switch, svn up -r### are all done using git checkout). But if you turn your head around and look at it from a different perspective, all three of those are doing the same thing: copying something from the repository store to the working copy. From the Git perspective, Subversion is giving three
April Fools! (Score:1, Troll)
Subversion is really a joke. Gotcha!
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood the popularity of git. It may be useful for open source by supporting distributed development but it seems far less useful for a traditional corporate environment. SVN just makes far more sense to me in terms of command structure. If I wanted a DVCS I would probably go with Mercurial. Git is just awful.
Re: (Score:0)
Git is just awful.
I confess to being a fan of git, but perhaps it's simply because I had worked for a long time without proper source control before discovering git- but I'm actually curious what is awful about it? I'm definitely open to switching to something better, but from my perspective, git is easy enough, it's great for working away from the vpn / traveling, and with github it's super easy to share and find good projects (sourceforge for example is so ugly and ad-ridden)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
discovering git- but I'm actually curious what is awful about it?
Linus's decision to screw over everyone that has ever used SCM by refusing to use normal terms is the most awful part. Instead, as he admitted, he just randomly assigned words to concepts. For example, he randomly picked the word checkout to mean revert. Ditto using the word reset to mean unstage. "git pull" refuses to update the source like a normal system would. Instead you have to do the "git stash; git stash apply stash@{0}" dance. And stash/unstash is not standard in the first place since Bazaar,
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
That choice actually makes sense from the Git model. A Subversion person would ask why there is one command for three+ different things (svn revert, svn switch, svn up -r### are all done using git checkout). But if you turn your head around and look at it from a different perspective, all three of those are doing the same thing: copying something from the repository store to the working copy. From the Git perspective, Subversion is giving three
Re:April Fools! (Score:2)
You're welcome.