> -----Original Message----- > From: git-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:git-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jakub Narebski > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:52 AM > To: David Kastrup > Cc: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Considering teaching plumbing to users harmful > > Subversion is simple if you are limited to simple things; but > the same is true with Git. I find for example the whole 'properties' > mechanism and its use seriously not simple. > Yes, that's exactly right. Because SVN's underlying repository is complex, it sometimes falls out in the UI. If you stick with the way SVN wants you to do things, you can get along with it fairly well. But that's the problem, it's just not flexible. On the other hand, Git's concept of the repository is so simple and clean, it's a DAG and you can actually do a lot more with fewer commands. But then you can do so much more as well and work the way *you* want to. For instance, SVN has a history of having to invent concepts that just shouldn't need to be invented. Their latest release includes something they call "merge tracking", but it falls on the floor in the face of what they call "reflective merging." [1] I don't find "merge tracking" and "reflective merges" concepts that I should *have* to understand when it comes to working with a VCS, the VCS should just *do* those things. Those concepts just don't exist in Git. Frankly, I don't find Subversion to be easier to use than Git at all and this is coming from a very long-time CVS user. I do find, however, that Git has a very large vocabulary and that does take some time to learn, but I'd argue that this is due to it's inherent flexibility than it is due to any inherent flaws. [1] -- http://blogs.open.collab.net/svn/2008/07/subversion-merg.html > -- > Jakub Narebski > Poland > ShadeHawk on #git > -- Cheers, Craig -- 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
