11–20 of 252 posts
Funny how they say that Git uses a "Bazaar-style development" process when Bazaar literally is another VCS. I'm also not convinced it's a good idea to merge your bug tracker and version control.
I'm surprised git caught on despite mercurial being much superior (hadn't heard of fossil before). Git has the following shortcomings which are major (some shared by other VCS too) 1) UI- terrible, terrible UI 2) Unncessarily complex data model 3) Doesn't scale well to large repos (until Microsoft's VFS- windows only) (and many others...)
git has a terrible UI, granted, but I find the hg UI pretty terrible too. I really hate their approach to branching (tho that is remedied these days with e.g. bookmarks to some extent).
Speaking of data model, I find gits model to be a lot saner. I REALLY hate that hg spams my disk with tons and tons of files within the .hg directory. Ever cloned e.g. the mozilla hg repos? ugh. Bonus points for their fancy name escaping mechanism in those files, which had me run into "path too long" issues on windows boxes a couple of times already.
Funny how they say that Git uses a "Bazaar-style development" process when Bazaar literally is another VCS. I'm also not convinced it's a good idea to merge your bug tracker and version control.
I'm surprised git caught on despite mercurial being much superior (hadn't heard of fossil before). Git has the following shortcomings which are major (some shared by other VCS too) 1) UI- terrible, terrible UI 2) Unncessarily complex data model 3) Doesn't scale well to large repos (until Microsoft's VFS- windows only) (and many others...)
To give a personal, subjective point of view of why I switched from hg to git: - hg was horribly slow compared to git; - I love the branchs model used in git to let several persons work on different parts of the same project, and I could never find a satisfactory equivalent using hg idiomatisms. It is true that hg has a far better UI in general, but Magit fixes this problem for me.
At this point, I can basically do most of Git commands in Magit with just muscle memory; say, stage everything in the tree, commit amend, reset author and dates, then force push (I know) to remote I would just press with evil-magit: gsSc-Racp-fpy (gs for invoking Magit, S to stage everything, c to enter commit mode, -R set the reset author flag, a amend commit, p enter push mode, -f set the force flag, p push to origin, y confirm force push)
It may sounds complicated, but the Magit UI is discoverable, and once you're used to it you can do anything without even looking at the UI...
I'm surprised git caught on despite mercurial being much superior (hadn't heard of fossil before). Git has the following shortcomings which are major (some shared by other VCS too) 1) UI- terrible, terrible UI 2) Unncessarily complex data model 3) Doesn't scale well to large repos (until Microsoft's VFS- windows only) (and many others...)
I would rather like a new option which was designed as a VCS from day one, that is user friendly and fast. Fossil is actually nearly there (I used it for a bit for some private projects)
I'm surprised git caught on despite mercurial being much superior (hadn't heard of fossil before). Git has the following shortcomings which are major (some shared by other VCS too) 1) UI- terrible, terrible UI 2) Unncessarily complex data model 3) Doesn't scale well to large repos (until Microsoft's VFS- windows only) (and many others...)
Hmm? It’s just a directed graph of SHA1s under the hood. Seems pretty simple to me once you understand that. My understanding was that Hg’s data model is actually way more complicated with more pointers.
As everyone else is chiming in, the reason git won was speed. I haven’t used mercurial in a few years but at the time when I was looking to replace SVN, git did everything seconds faster than Hg which made it the clear winner.
I'm surprised git caught on despite mercurial being much superior (hadn't heard of fossil before). Git has the following shortcomings which are major (some shared by other VCS too) 1) UI- terrible, terrible UI 2) Unncessarily complex data model 3) Doesn't scale well to large repos (until Microsoft's VFS- windows only) (and many others...)
The Mercurial alternatives like bitbucket just didn't have the same spread, and we got stuck with year after year of teaching new people a difficult interface.
I'm surprised git caught on despite mercurial being much superior (hadn't heard of fossil before). Git has the following shortcomings which are major (some shared by other VCS too) 1) UI- terrible, terrible UI 2) Unncessarily complex data model 3) Doesn't scale well to large repos (until Microsoft's VFS- windows only) (and many others...)
1) It is not beginners friendly but for day to day dev you only need to understand few commands. 2) Data model brings speed that was not possible before. git won VCS space because of sheer performance. 3) Scale just fine. Just windows have a really bad filesystem and Windows codebase is the pathologic case.
I'm surprised git caught on despite mercurial being much superior (hadn't heard of fossil before). Git has the following shortcomings which are major (some shared by other VCS too) 1) UI- terrible, terrible UI 2) Unncessarily complex data model 3) Doesn't scale well to large repos (until Microsoft's VFS- windows only) (and many others...)
To give a personal, subjective point of view of why I switched from hg to git: - hg was horribly slow compared to git; - I love the branchs model used in git to let several persons work on different parts of the same project, and I could never find a satisfactory equivalent using hg idiomatisms. It is true that hg has a far better UI in general, but Magit fixes this problem for me.
I used mercurial successfully, quite heavily, and I couldn't tell you much about how it's implemented.