On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Guilhem Bonnefille wrote: > > Yes, but I think that, as Git has ton more capabilities, user has to > understand more things than with CVS. I do agree. The whole "branch" thing is something you can ignore in CVS, but it's simply very hard to ignore in git, because even *if* you just follow another repository, git kind of forces you to be aware of the difference between "local branch" and "remote tracking branch". I think that's fairly fundamental to being distributed, though. > I don't know lot of corporate teams, but here, our developers are > REALLY not motivated by VCS. It's only a way to share work. And I'm > not talking about concurrent modification: lot of people in my office > really think that the better model is the locked one. Sure. At one level they may even be right. It's just that the locked model obviously doesn't work past a certain scenario. But explaining that to somebody who doesn't even think outside his own scenario is pointless. So no question: git has a level of abstraction and perhaps requires a higher-level view than RCS and CVS do. And I can well imagine that it is seen as more "difficult" because of that. I just haev to say that I worked with CVS at a commercial company for seven years, and I *did* do things like branches and merges etc, and despite workign with it at that level (not that I was the expert by any means: we had a person who came in with the main job literally being the tools around CVS to make branching more convenient etc), I seriously feel that CVS was a *lot* harder to get into than it is to get into git. > So for such people, I really think raw Git is much more complicated > than CVS/SVN. I do wonder what we could do about that. I think you can use git in the "SVN tracker only" model, and I really thought it was pretty damn simple, but ... Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html