3 ms·

> I consider this to be a failure of Git. The set of different options (normal merge, rebase, filter-branch, etc) is complex and not cleanly orthogonal which ma

by pawadu 10y ago

> I consider this to be a failure of Git. The set of different options (normal merge, rebase, filter-branch, etc) is complex and not cleanly orthogonal which makes for a very messy "mental model". Allow me to disagree... Does the CVS or SVN way of doing rebase and filter-branch work with your "mental model"? Well, there is your answer. > I really wish some tool other than Git had "won" the version-control race; I honestly believe Git to be the worst of the contenders in the most recent generation of version control systems Not to sound harsh, but why would I want to use an inferior tool just because you don't get git?

irishsultan 10y ago
I disagree with the person you're replying too, but CVS and SVN are not the current generation of version control systems (and CVS is perhaps not even the previous generation), so it's unclear why you bring them up. If you want to compare, compare to darcs, mercurial, bazaar, monotone, ... plenty of choice without going back to svn (let alone cvs).
- pawadu 10y ago
  I agree with you on all accounts ;) The point I was half-jokingly making was that people don't understand what an extremely powerful tool they have been given and instead complain about shallow stuff that for them is simple to grasp edit: the way mg, bzr and the rest do the advanced stuff [when available] is basically a carbon copy of git.
  - laughinghan 10y ago
    > the way mg, bzr and the rest do the advanced stuff [when available] is basically a carbon copy of git. I'm a pretty big fan of git, but this is an unproductive stance. I don't know much about bzr, but my impression is that darcs pioneered the ideas that became git-rebase, and elsewhere in this thread people are having substantive discussions about hg (Mercurial; I assume that's what you meant by mg) bookmarks and branches vs git branches: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13229582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13229582

by pawadu 10y ago

irishsultan 10y ago

I disagree with the person you're replying too, but CVS and SVN are not the current generation of version control systems (and CVS is perhaps not even the previous generation), so it's unclear why you bring them up. If you want to compare, compare to darcs, mercurial, bazaar, monotone, ... plenty of choice without going back to svn (let alone cvs).

pawadu 10y ago
I agree with you on all accounts ;) The point I was half-jokingly making was that people don't understand what an extremely powerful tool they have been given and instead complain about shallow stuff that for them is simple to grasp edit: the way mg, bzr and the rest do the advanced stuff [when available] is basically a carbon copy of git.
- laughinghan 10y ago
  > the way mg, bzr and the rest do the advanced stuff [when available] is basically a carbon copy of git. I'm a pretty big fan of git, but this is an unproductive stance. I don't know much about bzr, but my impression is that darcs pioneered the ideas that became git-rebase, and elsewhere in this thread people are having substantive discussions about hg (Mercurial; I assume that's what you meant by mg) bookmarks and branches vs git branches: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13229582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13229582