3 ms·

I think I have a good understanding of why people like Git. I question whether they should. In my experience, the time to learn Git for people unfamiliar with

I think I have a good understanding of why people like Git. I question whether they should. In my experience, the time to learn Git for people unfamiliar with it is significantly larger than for any RCS-style version control system including Subversion which is probably the most complicated RCS-style version control system. Similarly, even if you are proficient with Git, on average it takes significantly longer to use Git to do the same things as an RCS style version control system. This is true even if you use Git in a very simple way. If you use it in one of the very complex ways like the Android project/Git/Gerrit/Jenkins morass, it will take a lot longer. This time is a real cost to a business or an open-source project or what have you. Simplicity is often faster, cheaper, and better. I argue that it is more effective in a team project to share the actual history of the development in a shared development branch -- warts and all. Production and release candidates -- the works of art that you are trying to create -- can be tagged or identified in some other way. Bit by Git

eropple 12y ago
Oh c'mon, this is handwavy no-true-Scotsman bullshit. Anybody who says you're wrong, that they're faster, will be referred back to your unsourced claim of "on average". As for me: I administered and supported SVN at a shop with about a hundred and twenty developers and about half a million commits and an overall trunk size in the gigabytes. I've spent time in the SVN codebase and am comfortable saying I understand it and can wield it better than most people who aren't committers. And guess what? I'm significantly faster at using Git for pretty much anything I've ever had occasion to do with it, while being able to leverage the conceptually-very-simple plumbing architecture of Git to do things that make other developers a lot faster. (Git isn't perfect. Mercurial is better. But the answer isn't regression to a poorer model.)

eropple 12y ago

Oh c'mon, this is handwavy no-true-Scotsman bullshit. Anybody who says you're wrong, that they're faster, will be referred back to your unsourced claim of "on average". As for me: I administered and supported SVN at a shop with about a hundred and twenty developers and about half a million commits and an overall trunk size in the gigabytes. I've spent time in the SVN codebase and am comfortable saying I understand it and can wield it better than most people who aren't committers. And guess what? I'm significantly faster at using Git for pretty much anything I've ever had occasion to do with it, while being able to leverage the conceptually-very-simple plumbing architecture of Git to do things that make other developers a lot faster. (Git isn't perfect. Mercurial is better. But the answer isn't regression to a poorer model.)