With regular version control you're correct. Git however is a mess of leaky abstractions and misfeatures and requires an expert to do things that would be mundane less silly systems.
My experience with "less silly systems" suggests that the mundane things list is 2 items, and everything else is either impossible to do or doesn't quite do what you want. That and those 2 items aren't any harder to do in git, people just get confused by the staging area.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @01:07AM (#42102423)
"X's aren't any harder to do in git, people just get confused by Y"
This seems to be a common response to complaints about git, in spite of it being obviously silly. If more people get confused: it is harder to use; that is what harder to use means.
Other flavors of such silliness include: "git is not complex, you just have to understand its internal data model well" or "it is great, just read this 450 page book very very carefully and perhaps you can figure it out"
VSS was at least usable if you stuck SourceOffSite in front of it. That kept 99% of the problems from happening.
We evaluated a bunch of solutions back in '05-'07 and finally switched everything to SVN in '07. TortoiseSVN was the key selling point. Our environment is one where the users are not overly geeky or technical and a central repository suits our needs far better. We're not an open-source shop and all code is proprietary.
I've looked at git a few times, it just doesn't meet our needs.
We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.
PFT! Version control is for sissies. (Score:5, Funny)
I have my own simple and versatile way of keeping track of branches.
*Project
*Copy of project
*Copy of Copy of project
*Copy of Copy of copy of project
Re: (Score:0)
Reading a 456 page book on version control seems a waste of time. (Unless lots of your life resolves around merging code).
Re: (Score:0)
With regular version control you're correct. Git however is a mess of leaky abstractions and misfeatures and requires an expert to do things that would be mundane less silly systems.
Re: (Score:0)
My experience with "less silly systems" suggests that the mundane things list is 2 items, and everything else is either impossible to do or doesn't quite do what you want. That and those 2 items aren't any harder to do in git, people just get confused by the staging area.
Re:PFT! Version control is for sissies. (Score:1)
"X's aren't any harder to do in git, people just get confused by Y"
This seems to be a common response to complaints about git, in spite of it being obviously silly. If more people get confused: it is harder to use; that is what harder to use means.
Other flavors of such silliness include:
"git is not complex, you just have to understand its internal data model well" or "it is great, just read this 450 page book very very carefully and perhaps you can figure it out"
Re: (Score:2)
the only sane person who's an expert with another tool switching to SVN is just in the process of leaving CVS...
Or RCS. Or SCCS. Or PVCS. Or Clearcase. Or (shudder) Visual SourceSafe. There are a lot of tools out there that are more painful than Subversion...
Re: (Score:2)
We evaluated a bunch of solutions back in '05-'07 and finally switched everything to SVN in '07. TortoiseSVN was the key selling point. Our environment is one where the users are not overly geeky or technical and a central repository suits our needs far better. We're not an open-source shop and all code is proprietary.
I've looked at git a few times, it just doesn't meet our needs.