3 ms·
I can't think of a single plausible situation in which git is not superior in every way to all the other version control systems. I don't want to get into an e
by papaf 12y ago
I can't think of a single plausible situation in which git is not superior in every way to all the other version control systems.
I don't want to get into an emacs/vi style flamewar but other VCSs have their own advantages, and are better in some situations:
- I prefer SVNs handling of trees/subtrees. I can checkout and work on one small part of a large project.
- Fossil has ticketing and wiki out of the box. It is easier to set up a server and enables true distributed offline working.
- Mercurial is easier to use for the most frequent use cases.
- mixologic 12y agoGit's submodules and git-subtree are definitely clumsy to work with, but you can always use sparse checkout if you want to work on a small part of a large project. Ticket handling/wiki aren't really version control features. Decoupling those features from your VCS allows you to select the one that works best for your situation. Mercurial is easier to learn for the most frequent use cases, and its interface make a lot more sense. No argument there. But like I said earlier, once you do learn it, its no more difficult to use, follows the same paradigms, but really allows for the edge cases to shine.