3 ms·
> You must be referring to just the table at the top, not to the detailed argument below Well, not entirely, because in my opinion the detailed argument kind o
by jnurmine 7y ago
> You must be referring to just the table at the top, not to the detailed argument below
Well, not entirely, because in my opinion the detailed argument kind of hand-waves away the entire git worktree. Continuously switching branches inside a single large Git repo is certainly a suboptimal way to work with Git, but most of the time one should be able to avoid that with the worktree (though the worktree stuff is, of course, not a miracle cure for everything).
- wyoung2 7y agoYou’re not addressing the list of problems resulting from the use of this tacked-on feature. Also, Git continues to be taught with the switch-in-place method by default. I’m not saying it is impossible to get a Fossil-like workflow with Git, just that there are consequences from that not being the default.
- jnurmine 7y agoGetting a "Fossil-like workflow with Git" is not really the point, is it? One could argue that Fossil does not support "Git like workflow". It is not really a good argument either way. It is not like Fossil's workflow is a global optimum, it's just something Fossil does well.