From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26706 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2009 20:06:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 26697 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Sep 2009 20:06:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_42,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from lo.gmane.org (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:06:47 +0000 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Mpp9o-0002lq-7n for ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:06:44 +0200 Received: from 89.175.180.246 ([89.175.180.246]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:06:44 +0200 Received: from osv by 89.175.180.246 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:06:44 +0200 To: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com From: Sergei Organov Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <4AB7900D.30204@ecoscentric.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: [ECOS] Re: Switching to using git on eCosForge X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00178.txt.bz2 Alex Schuilenburg writes: [...] > My main argument against git is it has a very steep initial learning > curve, Really? Not in my experience. IMHO, those 3 we discuss are roughly the same, just having raw corners in different places. E.g., there is even a table of commands equivalence between hg and git somewhere. > and from experience you can hang yourself if you do not know what > you are doing. (Yes, there are rollbacks, etc, but sometimes it is a > while down the line before you realise you did something wrong). It's a very nice thing with git that it's virtually impossible to loose your work as soon as you committed it to git, really, even if you keep doing something wrong. Even though nowadays git does automatically run garbage collection, the reflog feature still keeps all unreferenced data intact for rather long time. > You really don't want to force new users on an additional learning > curve. There are 100's of commands to remember, whereas both bzr and > hg have one. Come on! Which one? 'hg' and 'bzr'??? Then git surprisingly has only one as well: 'git' ;-) One does need additional learning curve switching from CVS to any of DVCS'es, and all of them have *-for-CVS-users-manual ;-) And once again, with git you can have gitcvsserver running to keep "CVS forever" users happy with their favorite clients. > Also, while documentation is improving (http://book.git-scm.com/), it is > not as good or complete as mercurial (http://hgbook.red-bean.com/read/) > in terms of non-power users. Both have books in print available from > places like Amazon. For me git's documentation was more than enough to have a quick-start. > > For example, I started my evaluation with bzr, then hg then git. bzr and > hg were a lot easiest to pick up and start using than git. I wonder, do you remember what the problem(s) with git was (were)? Care to give an example where git is harder than any of the other two? > I also have done most of my eval on Linux, dropping back to Windows to > see how easy it was to use and integrate graphical diff tools, etc. > > For other comparisons see: > http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis > http://www.rockstarprogrammer.org/post/2008/apr/06/differences-between-mercurial-and-git/ > http://importantshock.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/git-vs-mercurial/ > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1450348/git-equivalents-of-most-common-mercurial-commands > http://rg03.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/mercurial-vs-git/ > http://www.diffen.com/difference/Git_%28software%29_vs_Mercurial_%28software%29 > ... > > but bear in mind that arguments against either git or hg may have > disappeared with more recent versions. You really need to try both... Yes, all 3 are improving and do borrow from each other. However, in my opinion, git is preferred in the long run as it has very clear, simple yet powerful model in its core, when hg already outlived its initial simple design model based on "every branch is a separate repository" idea (now it has 3(!) different kinds of branches), and bzr is being built from use-cases down (see how many times they have already changed format of repository). Yes, sure, me could be entirely wrong ;-) -- Sergei. -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss