2 ms·
I agree completely, and I think git vs. CVS is a good illustration of why people don't always understand the value of it. From a certain point of view, branchi
by dkarl 12y ago
I agree completely, and I think git vs. CVS is a good illustration of why people don't always understand the value of it. From a certain point of view, branching and merging was easier for most developers under CVS, because they never had to do it. It was a Big Deal and was done by special people. If you tell someone who is using CVS and never deals with branching and merging that they're switching to git, and oh, by the way, they'll be doing their own branching and merging from now on, that sounds like a horrible step backwards to them. Telling someone that you're going to make something difficult accessible to them can sound extremely threatening.
- bch 12y agoI think the gist of your sentiment is that barriers to entry aren't necessarily bad. I agree. I disagree that dscm (as a satisfied fossil user, I refuse to call these general concepts "git concepts") is the way to describe it though. I feel a closer analogy (from experience) is papering over horrible app performance by throwing up a proxy like varnish. You've still got garbage under the hood.
- dkarl 12y agoI don't mean to agree with people who resist this type of change, just to explain how it looks from their point of view. A CVS user sees branching and merging as a difficult, painful, time-consuming things to be avoided, so they're horrified if you tell them they're going to be branching and merging on a daily basis. They aren't right — generalizing from their CVS experience has given them a mistaken idea of what using git (or fossil) is like — but it's easy to understand why they're afraid. Also, ironically and unfortunately, the fact that a git (or fossil) advocate is enthusiastic about the ease of branching and merging is likely to make the CVS user think they are crazy, since you'd have to be crazy to love branching and merging in CVS.