3 ms·

> Git makes it easier to accept contributions and code review from a larger developer community, thereby allowing building a higher-quality product. It is very

by gkya 11y ago

> Git makes it easier to accept contributions and code review from a larger developer community, thereby allowing building a higher-quality product. It is very easy to contribute if you know git. But you can mess it up if you don't know. I made a two-line bugfix patch to flycheck, and heck, I was nearly pasting the patch into a comment in issues because I didn't know anything about how to make a pull request on github and how to commit so that the puller would be happy. I didn't want to do sth. embarassing and spent two hours reading and reading how to submit my patch properly. And the whole fix was made and tested in about two minutes. If only I was able to submit a dumb patch, I wouldn't have to care if they used git, cvs, or tarballs and quilt.

geofft 11y ago
I can't speak for other projects, but for anything I maintain on GitHub, "Hi, I don't know how to use git, but here's a patch file" is a perfectly acceptable bug report! I'm not claiming that git makes it 100% easy, just that it makes it more easy. That said, GitHub does let you use a web-based editor to create a git branch behind the scenes and open a pull request, with no VCS client required at all. So that's a point in GitHub's favor. (Again, it's not inherent to git, and a hypothetical CVSHub could do that, but GitHub exists.)
Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
I think it's easily fair to say that git is by far the superior option to CVS, and preferring CVS over git is objectively incorrect. I think that you would be wise to invest the time in learning how to use git correctly.
- gkya 11y ago
  Objective truth is second to factual productivity. I did use git. It's powerful, but more than I need. CVS takes ten pages of reading to grok. And then it's out of my way. I couldn't learn git in years, and there's something new every other day, it gets in my way. And I don't have time to chase a command line on stack overflow, I need that time for what I'm actually doing.
cyphar 11y ago
If you want to contribute to the Linux kernel, that's how it works as well. You just mail your patch and don't need to know anything about git.

by gkya 11y ago

geofft 11y ago

I can't speak for other projects, but for anything I maintain on GitHub, "Hi, I don't know how to use git, but here's a patch file" is a perfectly acceptable bug report! I'm not claiming that git makes it 100% easy, just that it makes it more easy. That said, GitHub does let you use a web-based editor to create a git branch behind the scenes and open a pull request, with no VCS client required at all. So that's a point in GitHub's favor. (Again, it's not inherent to git, and a hypothetical CVSHub could do that, but GitHub exists.)

Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago

I think it's easily fair to say that git is by far the superior option to CVS, and preferring CVS over git is objectively incorrect. I think that you would be wise to invest the time in learning how to use git correctly.

gkya 11y ago
Objective truth is second to factual productivity. I did use git. It's powerful, but more than I need. CVS takes ten pages of reading to grok. And then it's out of my way. I couldn't learn git in years, and there's something new every other day, it gets in my way. And I don't have time to chase a command line on stack overflow, I need that time for what I'm actually doing.

cyphar 11y ago

If you want to contribute to the Linux kernel, that's how it works as well. You just mail your patch and don't need to know anything about git.