On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 01:11:16PM -0800, SJS wrote:
Really?
How much of that is said by people who don't have an emotional
investment in git?
I'm not sure if I'd call using a tool that helps me rather than getting in
my way an emotional investement. It's pretty easy to come up with specific
cases where git is demonstrably "better" at merging, the biggest example
being repeated resolution of the same conflict. Honestly, I think darcs
does merges better than git, but has enough other problems that get in the
way.
The problem with tools is that people tend to think about the problems in
light of what their tools are capable of doing. Someone who has used tool
'X' tends to not think of doing things that could easily be done with tool
'Y'.
On the other hand, people that become git zealots (of which I definitely am
one) tend to go through this almost revelation experience where they
suddenly realize all kinds of things that are easy to do that make work so
much easier. I'm seeing this happen, one-by-one, with my coworkers.
It partly explains why git has to many interfaces to other revision control
systems. There are people using svn through git-svn just because it lets
them have private topic branches.
Git is far from perfect, but the underlying model is solid, and people are
working on the implementation warts.
Dave
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
