4 ms·

I'll add a fourth, which is the "killer feature" for me and my current workflow: Git allows working from more than one system at once without requiring a const

I'll add a fourth, which is the "killer feature" for me and my current workflow: Git allows working from more than one system at once without requiring a constant server connection. When I'm on the go and want to make changes to my code from my laptop, I can make commits, I've got access to the full history, etc. All that's required is a pull from my desktop before I leave my office, and I've got a shell script that pulls the repositories for all my projects at once. With something like SVN, this kind of thing was a major pain, as I'd either have to work just with my local copy on the laptop (leading to poorly tracked mega-commits), or copy the whole file system structure of the repository to the laptop, which quickly gets you into desynchronised territory. Add another developer and you're instantly dead with that kind of system.

lliles 18y ago
Same here... I work on the train during my morning/evening commute to the office. Being able to commit and branch offline is a major win.
thomasmallen 18y ago
Mercurial provides the same "killer feature", which I think nullifies any "killer feature" status for git (implies exclusivity, I believe).
- pmjordan 18y ago
  Fine. Call it the killer feature of distributed version control systems. Works for me, in any case.
  - thomasmallen 18y ago
    Why do you prefer Git to Mercurial? I've only used Mercurial.
    - pmjordan 18y ago
      I'm not an expert in git (still learning) and I've hardly used Mercurial at all, so right now there's no particular reason. There are probably better people to ask that question. :) I'll try hg in a project sooner or later, but learning to get to grips with 2 version control systems at once while trying to do something productive seemed a bit much. There wasn't really anything on the feature lists that tipped the scales; the Linus Torvalds association and the resulting curiosity probably did. I can't believe I fell for a celebrity endorsement. ;)
      - thomasmallen 18y ago
        I prefer Mercurial for mostly cosmetic reasons (I believe that Git and Mercurial are very close, feature-wise). I prefer having one command "hg" ("hd add", "hg serve", etc.) to the dozens of commands for git. I think it has more to do with the way that I think than anything else: Mercurial commands are easier to remember for me.
        pmjordan 18y ago
        Um, "git add", "git push", etc. work fine. I think the hyphenated versions are deprecated anyway.
    - orib 18y ago
      Why git? It's popular, which means it's easy to find people to ask questions when you need to. Really, I'd be fine with any fast distributed VCS, which means nearly all of them these days. (sorry Darcs). The ease of setup ("If you have SSH you have a git server") feature is also very nice, but I don't think it's exclusive to git.

lliles 18y ago

Same here... I work on the train during my morning/evening commute to the office. Being able to commit and branch offline is a major win.

thomasmallen 18y ago

Mercurial provides the same "killer feature", which I think nullifies any "killer feature" status for git (implies exclusivity, I believe).

pmjordan 18y ago
Fine. Call it the killer feature of distributed version control systems. Works for me, in any case.
- thomasmallen 18y ago
  Why do you prefer Git to Mercurial? I've only used Mercurial.
  - pmjordan 18y ago
    I'm not an expert in git (still learning) and I've hardly used Mercurial at all, so right now there's no particular reason. There are probably better people to ask that question. :) I'll try hg in a project sooner or later, but learning to get to grips with 2 version control systems at once while trying to do something productive seemed a bit much. There wasn't really anything on the feature lists that tipped the scales; the Linus Torvalds association and the resulting curiosity probably did. I can't believe I fell for a celebrity endorsement. ;)
    - thomasmallen 18y ago
      I prefer Mercurial for mostly cosmetic reasons (I believe that Git and Mercurial are very close, feature-wise). I prefer having one command "hg" ("hd add", "hg serve", etc.) to the dozens of commands for git. I think it has more to do with the way that I think than anything else: Mercurial commands are easier to remember for me.
      - pmjordan 18y ago
        Um, "git add", "git push", etc. work fine. I think the hyphenated versions are deprecated anyway.
  - orib 18y ago
    Why git? It's popular, which means it's easy to find people to ask questions when you need to. Really, I'd be fine with any fast distributed VCS, which means nearly all of them these days. (sorry Darcs). The ease of setup ("If you have SSH you have a git server") feature is also very nice, but I don't think it's exclusive to git.