13 ms·
Last time I checked every alternative to Git was lacking some major feature that would immediately make it a non-alternative to me. (And I wouldn't even remotel
by hannob 3y ago
Last time I checked every alternative to Git was lacking some major feature that would immediately make it a non-alternative to me. (And I wouldn't even remotely call myself a Git power user.)
For Mercurial, that was shallow clones. I haven't looked at it in a while, but a quick googling shows me a wiki page where they discuss how an implementation could look like, and it hasn't been updated since 2015.
Network effects are certainly a reason git is popular. But also: If you want to challenge git, you should be able to compete with its basic features.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoFossil?
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agono rebase, which for me is perfectly ok as I agree with the creator of Fossil wrt rebase. But it's definitely missing git's rebase :)
- failingslowly 3y agoAny of the non-distributed version control systems? /only ever so slightly s
- klodolph 3y agoYeah. My workflow in Git centers on the index, and making lots of commits on local branches that will never get pushed. I spend a day working, rewrite history, stash a bunch of unrelated changes on temporary branches, and then send a couple commits on the main branch for code review. When I used Mercurial for work, it felt surreal to have all of those weird little workflows get locked away behind plugins. I get how Mercurial is way easier for people starting out, and I also get that I could just use the plugins, but when I use Git, all those history-rewriting tools are right there where I want them.
- quleap 3y agoMercurial, with its changeset evolution and phase management, is gazillions times more powerful than Git in terms of history rewriting.
- mtmmtm 3y agobzr is superior to git in most ways. The only problem is that it is not used by many people today.