discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNA is down...


From: Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller
Subject: Re: GNA is down...
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:09:46 +0100

Am 13.02.2012 um 18:38 schrieb Nicolas Roard:

> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:30 AM, David Chisnall <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2012, at 13:23, Quentin Mathé wrote:
>> 
>>> I quite like Fossil, but I'd be fine with Mercurial too. Both seems to have 
>>> a similar command-line interface:
>>> Fossil: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/quickstart.wiki
>>> Mercurial: 
>>> http://ivy.fr/mercurial/ref/v1.0/Mercurial-QuickStart-v1.0-120dpi.png
>>> 
>>> As a disclaimer, my experience is limited to Git. I used it for several 
>>> months, although it has some nice features, but its command-line interface 
>>> is a pain, and it's easy to corrupt your local repository history by 
>>> mistake.
> 
> I've been using git for the last couple of years at work (well, a mix
> of git and our own scripts, gerrit), and while the beginning was a bit
> annoying, I really can't work without it now. I agree that you indeed
> can shoot yourself in the foot with git, but if you follow a
> reasonable workflow it's pretty simple (i.e. git add -p, git commit).
> And its merge capabilities are pretty awesome. So if you are looking
> at it as a replacement for your SVN workflow, you can keep things very
> simple I think; more complicated things are complicated, but at least
> they are doable (not really the case with SVN).
> 
> Other than the merge capabilities, I think the other important point
> with git is that it's now widespread, so it's pretty easy to find
> documentation or people to teach you.
> 
> That being said, I never played with mercurial, and heard good things
> from it as well. Fossil looks interesting, I'm just a bit wary of
> picking another obscure technology :)

I also have some experience with git doing Linux kernel development.
And a multi-year's experience with SVN.

I love some of the features which I would like to have in SVN:
* offline commit
* only one .git subdirectory at the root, i.e. painless addition and
  moving around of subdirectories

But I also hate some of the commands sine they are not at all intuitive.
Even if I earmark them in a git compendium. And, if something goes
wrong you are usually completely lost and think about setting up
a new repository from your local copy :)

For the other proposals (hg and fossil) I have exactly the same opinion.

So for me it is fine with SVN, I can live with it, but git is also ok.

Nikolaus




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]