3 ms·
> Mercurial wasn't as simple as Subversion. What? Subversion is by far the most complex versioning software I've ever used. > Git has so many gotchas, bells a
by tasuki 5mo ago
> Mercurial wasn't as simple as Subversion.
What? Subversion is by far the most complex versioning software I've ever used.
> Git has so many gotchas, bells and whistles
The Git UI leaves a little to be desired. But inside, Git is basically just blobs, trees, commits, and refs. It'd be hard (or impossible?) to find a conceptually simpler versioning system.
- juvoly 5mo agoYou're right about SVN's guts vs Git. I should have been clearer that I was referring to the client cli only.
- ahartmetz 5mo agoJust an example that I recently noticed when I briefly had to use svn again: Show a diff: svn diff / git diff Show log with diffs: svn log --diff / git log --patch Git calling the same or similar things different (or just terrible - tree-ish? ref?) names is one of the worst things about Git.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- delecti 5mo agoI found that doing anything even slightly unusual in Git was pretty incomprehensible until I learned its internals, and pretty easy once I did. Fortunately as you say the internals are conceptually pretty simple to learn.
- eclipticplane 5mo agoSubversion pre-1.5 was a nightmare. Branch merges were by convention in commit messages. To merge 20 commits from your branch, you would do `svn merge -r 125:140 /branches/my-feature` and then note in the commit message which range you merged. 1.5 made that tracking automatic but just shoved it into a metadata field that just percolated through every directory in a project. And if someone tried to rename a core path? In the distance, sirens.