4 ms·

Like with most things, popularity is not derived from what you expect, yet popularity exists for good reason. Git may or may not be perfect, depending on your p

by kbar13 12y ago

Like with most things, popularity is not derived from what you expect, yet popularity exists for good reason. Git may or may not be perfect, depending on your point of view. However, it's more than sufficient to do the job, and it does the job pretty darn well. The other factor is that it's popular because.... it's popular. Yes, it's a good idea to take on git because other people use it. It's not a personal tool like your text editor where you can lord over your little realm and customize the crap out of it. git is a collaboration tool.

bch 12y ago
> Like with most things, popularity is not derived from what you expect I listed what I suspect... > yet popularity exists for good reason. Are you talking about cause or effect ? Does it matter ? > Git may or may not be perfect, depending on your point of view. It's not, _nearly_ certainly regardless of ones PoV > However, it's more than sufficient to do the job, and it does the job pretty darn well. It's used a lot, and mostly works, sure. > The other factor is that it's popular because.... it's popular. What "other factor" is this? I was talking about what I consider weak points and poor engineering -- I'm not denying it's popular... it's practically a verb (people say "git" where "source control management", or "distributed source control management" is what they mean...) > Yes, it's a good idea to take on git because other people use it. Network effect, I get it... > It's not a personal tool like your text editor where you can lord over your little realm and customize the crap out of it. Well... not everybody is managing the Linux kernel. Not everybody is even collaborating. I use fossil[0] because I'd rather enjoy my development process. It _works_ for me. I don't care if Linus uses git, or if some high-profile codebase is managed by git. > git is a collaboration tool. And so are fossil and mercurial. And I've run _many_ projects under fossil, including ~20-person distributed (cross-country) projects that include development, configuration, and release management. No git necessary. I not saying git isn't popular, or can't do its job. I'm saying: Its a bit hard to understand why git (which I suggest is unnecessarily difficult) is so popular -- I listed my two suspicions. [0] http://fossil-scm.org http://fossil-scm.org
- kaishiro 12y ago
  Just to add another anecdotal point on top of your own. I use git because it gets the jobs done. I don't remotely care that Linus uses it. I've honestly never ran into issues even on 20 person+ teams using simple branch & rebase strategies. To each their own.
  - dalai 12y ago
    I am not sure what your point is. Subversion, git, hg, darcs all get the job done. Was your choice of git based on its superiority over the other ones or just a side effect of its popularity? The problem with git is not that you will run into issues, it is that other vcs provide a saner ui and require less of their users without missing on features.
    - kaishiro 12y ago
      But surely we all understand that the "best" tool doesn't always win the day, right?

by kbar13 12y ago

bch 12y ago

> Like with most things, popularity is not derived from what you expect I listed what I suspect... > yet popularity exists for good reason. Are you talking about cause or effect ? Does it matter ? > Git may or may not be perfect, depending on your point of view. It's not, _nearly_ certainly regardless of ones PoV > However, it's more than sufficient to do the job, and it does the job pretty darn well. It's used a lot, and mostly works, sure. > The other factor is that it's popular because.... it's popular. What "other factor" is this? I was talking about what I consider weak points and poor engineering -- I'm not denying it's popular... it's practically a verb (people say "git" where "source control management", or "distributed source control management" is what they mean...) > Yes, it's a good idea to take on git because other people use it. Network effect, I get it... > It's not a personal tool like your text editor where you can lord over your little realm and customize the crap out of it. Well... not everybody is managing the Linux kernel. Not everybody is even collaborating. I use fossil[0] because I'd rather enjoy my development process. It _works_ for me. I don't care if Linus uses git, or if some high-profile codebase is managed by git. > git is a collaboration tool. And so are fossil and mercurial. And I've run _many_ projects under fossil, including ~20-person distributed (cross-country) projects that include development, configuration, and release management. No git necessary. I not saying git isn't popular, or can't do its job. I'm saying: Its a bit hard to understand why git (which I suggest is unnecessarily difficult) is so popular -- I listed my two suspicions. [0] http://fossil-scm.org http://fossil-scm.org

kaishiro 12y ago
Just to add another anecdotal point on top of your own. I use git because it gets the jobs done. I don't remotely care that Linus uses it. I've honestly never ran into issues even on 20 person+ teams using simple branch & rebase strategies. To each their own.
- dalai 12y ago
  I am not sure what your point is. Subversion, git, hg, darcs all get the job done. Was your choice of git based on its superiority over the other ones or just a side effect of its popularity? The problem with git is not that you will run into issues, it is that other vcs provide a saner ui and require less of their users without missing on features.
  - kaishiro 12y ago
    But surely we all understand that the "best" tool doesn't always win the day, right?