Hi,
I guess we are getting off-topic ;-)
Carl Worth wrote:
I can appreciate you not being interested in learning the details of
the implementation. But for making a decision, _somebody_ should have
an informed opinion based on the details. Because they really do
matter for all the reasons Keith explained in his blog entry.
Agreed - other things matter also, is all.
If I
were asked for my opinion, I would say "I've studied the details of
the svn, git, bzr, and hg implementations and git wins hands
down". And you should just accept that as truth, because otherwise
I'll have to start telling you _why_ which will involve details you
don't want to hear.
I'm happy to just take your word that git has a great implementation
(btw, I'm not trying to talk anyone in or out of using git, just trying
to understand the appeal since various people have tried talking me into
using it).
So for the things you've mentioned, I don't see any problems to them
getting fixed, and I do see good progress toward making that
happen. One thing that would help is a new user to git carefully
noting annoyances, since experienced users grow accustomed to things
and don't always realize what should be changed.
I'm happy to do that if I start working on a git-enabled project.
[*] Though, with a quick test below (create repo, add file, commit,
change file, commit), of git, hg, svn, and bzr it turns out that svn
is the noisiest, and hg is the only tool that is totally silent.
As a start on the logging of new user impressions, this was one of the
things I found confusing trying to use git ("is it doing anything?")
I guess many command line tools are silent, so it's not necessarily
surprising in that respect, but I am used to non-silent source control
for historical reasons.
> Probably the best thing to take away from what follows is that the UI
> for all of these tools really is quite similar.
That's kind of why I find myself asking about git - from a black box
point of view, it looked the same (plus a lot of extra implementation
leakage), but the "hype" if you will seems to imply more ("distributed
workflow"? don't know).
The answers to "what's the appeal?" I understand so far are:
a) it has offline operation
b) the implementation has good robustness
Havoc
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
