4 ms·

Back in the day using CVS, and subversion later was a constant struggle. Before switching to git i used darcs for several years and tried mercurial. Git was cle

by pampa 10y ago

Back in the day using CVS, and subversion later was a constant struggle. Before switching to git i used darcs for several years and tried mercurial. Git was clearly better than any of them. So, how can you tell that git is no good, if it is the best of the tools available?

jack9 10y ago
> subversion later was a constant struggle The only struggle about svn is branching (copy the whole thing) and merging was more frequent. There were many CVS systems, which I worked on, where there was no way to track who made what change in a day.
lucideer 10y ago
You switched from using "was" in your first paragraph to "is" in your second. There are certainly more competitors to Git today than there were then.
- isxek 10y ago
  Are there really more? Some similar projects like Monotone and Bazaar are no longer being actively/regularly developed IIRC, and the number of hosting services for something as well-known as Mercurial has been dwindling.
  - merijnv 10y ago
    Because, I'm guessing, a lot of people using Mercurial (like me) are just using GitHub. Mercurial has had a functional bidirectional git-mercurial bridge extension for over half a decade and I've never ran into issues with it. The result is that I happily keep using Mercurial locally even when collaborating with people using Git. I don't see the need to have Mercurial specific hosting. (Well, until Bitbucket finally starts working with obsolence markers so I can use Changeset Evolution).
em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
"how can you tell that git is no good, if it is the best of the tools available?" Because the UI is complicated & confusing for new users, making it easy to dig yourself a hole.
- icebraining 10y ago
  It's also inconsistent; "git branch -d" vs "git submodule remove" vs "git tag --delete".
MustardTiger 10y ago
It isn't the best, you just like it best. Lots of people do not agree. I also used darcs and mercurial. I still do use darcs, and have essentially stopped participating in most open source projects because I find git so unpleasant to try to use.
hvidgaard 10y ago
I've used git and mercurial extensively, but only with git have we regularly had the need to summon The Expert. With git I have to tell new users "don't use a flag or setting if you think you know what it does, look it up". That has not been needed for mercurial. One particular good feature is the concept of a commit phase. It makes is crystal clear when rewriting history is allowed, and more importantly, when it isn't.

by pampa 10y ago

jack9 10y ago

> subversion later was a constant struggle The only struggle about svn is branching (copy the whole thing) and merging was more frequent. There were many CVS systems, which I worked on, where there was no way to track who made what change in a day.

lucideer 10y ago

You switched from using "was" in your first paragraph to "is" in your second. There are certainly more competitors to Git today than there were then.

isxek 10y ago
Are there really more? Some similar projects like Monotone and Bazaar are no longer being actively/regularly developed IIRC, and the number of hosting services for something as well-known as Mercurial has been dwindling.
- merijnv 10y ago
  Because, I'm guessing, a lot of people using Mercurial (like me) are just using GitHub. Mercurial has had a functional bidirectional git-mercurial bridge extension for over half a decade and I've never ran into issues with it. The result is that I happily keep using Mercurial locally even when collaborating with people using Git. I don't see the need to have Mercurial specific hosting. (Well, until Bitbucket finally starts working with obsolence markers so I can use Changeset Evolution).

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago

"how can you tell that git is no good, if it is the best of the tools available?" Because the UI is complicated & confusing for new users, making it easy to dig yourself a hole.

icebraining 10y ago
It's also inconsistent; "git branch -d" vs "git submodule remove" vs "git tag --delete".

MustardTiger 10y ago

It isn't the best, you just like it best. Lots of people do not agree. I also used darcs and mercurial. I still do use darcs, and have essentially stopped participating in most open source projects because I find git so unpleasant to try to use.

hvidgaard 10y ago

I've used git and mercurial extensively, but only with git have we regularly had the need to summon The Expert. With git I have to tell new users "don't use a flag or setting if you think you know what it does, look it up". That has not been needed for mercurial. One particular good feature is the concept of a commit phase. It makes is crystal clear when rewriting history is allowed, and more importantly, when it isn't.