4 ms·

I'd say git is popular not just because of Linus, but also because it is oriented towards "just getting stuff done", rather than towards theoretical concepts.

by jwr 13y ago

I'd say git is popular not just because of Linus, but also because it is oriented towards "just getting stuff done", rather than towards theoretical concepts. You can rewrite history, fix your mistakes, and generally do whatever you want. When merging, git isn't picky, either: if the code looks the same, it is the same. In-place branching is hugely useful, just switch your tree in an instant (your editor should update the contents of your files automatically). So is the stash. Overall, it's just a useful tool that doesn't try to teach you "how things should theoretically be done", and never says "well in order to get X, you should have done this a long time ago".

unethical_ban 13y ago
Except bzr is conceptually easier to learn and has a more consistent command syntax than git.
- andrewem 13y ago
  What are some of the conceptual differences that make bzr easier to learn? (I agree that git's command syntax is inconsistent.)
  - gizmogwai 13y ago
    Command names are closer to SVN/CVS ones, which lower the learning curve for similar concepts. The documentation really is at another level of didactic compare to git, and no, pro-git is not enough neither. Changes are tracked automatically, no need to explicitly add the files you changed to a particular commit (Whether or not it is a good idea is another discussion). Empty directories can be versioned, no need to create a .gitignore in it to fool the system (Same remark as above).
  - unethical_ban 13y ago
    The syntax is part of it being easier. Also, though it's been a while since I tried using any official git documentation, bzr's website had handy tutorials, references, and cheatsheets available. Great layout, assumed no VCS experience.
    - Crito 13y ago
      That's not conceptually simpler, that is just easier to learn. Git's concepts actually are simple. You can explain the concepts and guts of git to developers with a whiteboard in a few minutes. The standard CLI UI is admittedly a weak-point, but it does not appear to have slowed adoption...
      - unethical_ban 13y ago
        I get what you're saying, but it depends on how you learn it. I tried learning both of them through their official tutorials and /their CLI commands/. With git's more confusing command set, I had a harder time learning.

by jwr 13y ago

unethical_ban 13y ago

Except bzr is conceptually easier to learn and has a more consistent command syntax than git.

andrewem 13y ago
What are some of the conceptual differences that make bzr easier to learn? (I agree that git's command syntax is inconsistent.)
- gizmogwai 13y ago
  Command names are closer to SVN/CVS ones, which lower the learning curve for similar concepts. The documentation really is at another level of didactic compare to git, and no, pro-git is not enough neither. Changes are tracked automatically, no need to explicitly add the files you changed to a particular commit (Whether or not it is a good idea is another discussion). Empty directories can be versioned, no need to create a .gitignore in it to fool the system (Same remark as above).
- unethical_ban 13y ago
  The syntax is part of it being easier. Also, though it's been a while since I tried using any official git documentation, bzr's website had handy tutorials, references, and cheatsheets available. Great layout, assumed no VCS experience.
  - Crito 13y ago
    That's not conceptually simpler, that is just easier to learn. Git's concepts actually are simple. You can explain the concepts and guts of git to developers with a whiteboard in a few minutes. The standard CLI UI is admittedly a weak-point, but it does not appear to have slowed adoption...
    - unethical_ban 13y ago
      I get what you're saying, but it depends on how you learn it. I tried learning both of them through their official tutorials and /their CLI commands/. With git's more confusing command set, I had a harder time learning.