2 ms·

> If only we could instead have an intuitive version control system What makes git any less intuitive compared to svn or cvs? To use either of those or git ef

• q-rews 5y ago
  I have no experience with those, but the complaint is that there are a myriad of commands and flags and overloads that could basically amount to a handful of common operations and simple resolutions. I myself have “no issues” with git but conflict resolutions are still a guessing game when they’re for middle commits
• seiferteric 5y ago
  Typically git is compared to mercurial which is quite similar in many ways, but feels much simpler. It's been a while since I have used mercurial but I enjoyed it a lot.
• astura 5y ago
  Svn and cvs are centralized, which makes everything much more intuitive and easier to understand IMO. I also think they are simpler (centralization requires less commands)
  • u801e 5y ago
    > Svn and cvs are centralized, which makes everything much more intuitive and easier to understand IMO. For both cvs and svn, creating branches, merging changes from different branches, and switching branches definitely were operations that required a few steps that would not be easy to figure out without reading through the documentation. The only thing that git had that those programs didn't was the concept of a staging area, which, as I understand it, bazaar and mercurial didn't have (unless you created another copy of the repo or another branch to serve as a staging area). But the fact that people have tried to replicate that feature in the other DVCSs indicates that it's a desired feature, even if it does add some complexity compared to not having it.