3 ms·

I'm just happy that I can put the days of CVS, Subversion, and Perforce behind me. While Git has its warts, it's firmly in "good enough" territory.

• bigstrat2003 2y ago
  Eh. I thought Subversion was way easier to use (and thus better) than git, which is an absolute nightmare of complexity for people who don't need all the bells and whistles (which is most people). But so it goes, times change and all that.
  • SoftTalker 2y ago
    Yeah subversion always worked fine in my experience and it was easy to understand.
  • floating-io 2y ago
    I really don't get why people think git is uber-complicated for normal users. I know: clone, pull, push, branch, checkout -b, merge, rebase -i. Those are my mainstays. The stash/stash pop stuff for a convenient power tool. And very occasionally, export to make a tarball. It's so exceptionally rare for me to need anything else that I can't even think of anything else I've used offhand. The first six are basic SCM, and IMO simpler to deal with than svn ever was. The rest... are conveniences that most don't need. Except rebase, debatably. Rebase takes a short time to learn, but is well worth the trouble. I've used a number of source control platforms over the years; git has been by far the easiest and most natural to work with for me. I've used it exclusively since around 2010ish, and have no regrets.
• floating-io 2y ago
  Amen. On the other hand, I do miss things like $Id$...