3 ms·
None of the other big VCS had fatal flaws. If they had fatal flaws, they wouldn't have been used. Sure, not being able to rename a file easily in CVS was quite
by bhaak 7y ago
None of the other big VCS had fatal flaws. If they had fatal flaws, they wouldn't have been used.
Sure, not being able to rename a file easily in CVS was quite an annoyance but nothing that made it completely useless.
There were always workarounds. But exactly those areas were workarounds or better tooling patches over stuff Git doesn't do are the areas that a possible successor will address.
- jerf 7y ago"None of the other big VCS had fatal flaws. If they had fatal flaws, they wouldn't have been used." That's just quibbling about definitions in fuzzy English. If you want to insist they weren't "fatally flawed" at the time, fine, but they certainly are relative to 2020 even by your definition.
- bhaak 7y agoThey still work. You can still develop with them. In that sense they aren't fatally flawed even today. 2018, 16% still used Subversion. https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018#development-practices https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018#development-p... But that's the hope, that we have something better by 2040, that makes today's Git look as outdated as CVS/Subversion looks to us now.
- jerf 7y agoYou're really doubling down on applying deliberately hostile definitions to what I said, aren't you? I get to tell you what I meant. You don't get to pick the definitions I was using, especially after I told you you explicitly you picked the wrong one.
- bhaak 7y agoYou didn't really define what you meant with "fatal flaws". You just claimed that git didn't have them. But if your Subversion example is one of those fatal flaws, then I just link to his example of Git usage that probably happens more often than we want to admit https://xkcd.com/1597/ https://xkcd.com/1597/ Using your tool wrong is not a fatal flaw of the tool.