2 ms·
This. Absolutely this. It's ironic how many people claim that Mercurial is simpler, when actually git is much simpler and more elegant. You don't need named
by reality_czech 11y ago
This. Absolutely this.
It's ironic how many people claim that Mercurial is simpler, when actually git is much simpler and more elegant. You don't need named branches, bookmarks, extensions, and all that stuff. Just a graph of commits. The core of git is beautifully simple.
I don't know what's more frustrating-- people who think DVCSes need to be really really complicated, or people who endlessly complain over what color the command-line bikeshed is painted.