3 ms·

You also don't have to understand the underlying structure for a similarly powerful DVCS like bitkeeper. Yes, it isn't open source, but git was a major step ba

You also don't have to understand the underlying structure for a similarly powerful DVCS like bitkeeper. Yes, it isn't open source, but git was a major step back in usability for my group from bk to git.

cmrdporcupine 7y ago
Yes, this. I actually tried bk before git, and actually used bazaar and then mercurial before git as well. I was stunned at how arcane the UI in git was made (And how arrogant the community of users around it could be, too). Bk was clean and elegant frankly. I'm no idiot when it comes to the concepts -- but git's CLI interface is just awful. Bitkeeper is in fact open source now, BTW. Too late, but it is.
- ldiracdelta 7y ago
  You're right. The arrogance was hilarious. People with no experience with bk saying, "What's your problem?" Now, git is super fast, because its core is written by Linus, but I think he is just so much better technically and so far into the internal weeds of Linux for so long in so many areas that he had trouble creating an API for mere mortals.
mschaef 7y ago
> git was a major step back in usability for my group from bk to git. What does that mean in concrete terms? What are the failures you're seeing with git that you weren't with bk? How long has your team used git? bk?
- ldiracdelta 7y ago
  We used bk when I was with the group for 3 years and then switched to git. Been using git for 8 years. I know git, but the ergonomics and basic English semantic meaning of commands is much worse. I have to look up git commands and subflags _all_ the time still for checking out old versions of files to a new file. Looking at tags. Commiting to a new branch, et c. Bk's version of gitk was superior and the usage was nicer. I've used mercurial, svn, cvs, git, and bk. Git is hard, but it is the standard now, so of course I'll continue to embrace it. Just not as ergonomic.

cmrdporcupine 7y ago

Yes, this. I actually tried bk before git, and actually used bazaar and then mercurial before git as well. I was stunned at how arcane the UI in git was made (And how arrogant the community of users around it could be, too). Bk was clean and elegant frankly. I'm no idiot when it comes to the concepts -- but git's CLI interface is just awful. Bitkeeper is in fact open source now, BTW. Too late, but it is.

ldiracdelta 7y ago
You're right. The arrogance was hilarious. People with no experience with bk saying, "What's your problem?" Now, git is super fast, because its core is written by Linus, but I think he is just so much better technically and so far into the internal weeds of Linux for so long in so many areas that he had trouble creating an API for mere mortals.

mschaef 7y ago

> git was a major step back in usability for my group from bk to git. What does that mean in concrete terms? What are the failures you're seeing with git that you weren't with bk? How long has your team used git? bk?

ldiracdelta 7y ago
We used bk when I was with the group for 3 years and then switched to git. Been using git for 8 years. I know git, but the ergonomics and basic English semantic meaning of commands is much worse. I have to look up git commands and subflags _all_ the time still for checking out old versions of files to a new file. Looking at tags. Commiting to a new branch, et c. Bk's version of gitk was superior and the usage was nicer. I've used mercurial, svn, cvs, git, and bk. Git is hard, but it is the standard now, so of course I'll continue to embrace it. Just not as ergonomic.