Preference for git over other distributed version control?

elasticdog · 2007-09-26 21:06:22

Out of curiosity, and not to start a flamewar or anything...but, why does it seem like most Archers have an preference for git over other distributed version control software choices? I tend to like Mercurial, as it was an easy transition from using SVN for so long, but reading the mailing lists, it looks like most of the Arch project development is moving toward git. Is there something I don't know?

Dusty · 2007-09-26 21:30:26

My guess is that its because Xentac has tried all version control systems known to man and has settled on GIT... he's a hell of a salesman when he starts pressuring people to use a version control system. :-)

I don't have direct experience with git (I haven't had the chance to create a new project using it), but from what I've read about it, it is very simple, elegant, and well designed -- things that clearly appeal to Archers. Its also really nice for multiple developers in distributed development; this is a place where I personally find subversion to be weak.

Dusty

muczyjoe · 2007-09-26 21:30:48

On sunday, we had software freedome day, and in Hungary, we had a presentation about git (frugalware dev team changed to git).
They said, that it's much more faster than e.g. cvs (i mean it's faster to do changes, send patches). It also has some debug feature, like comparing different versions, so if you had some problem in a.b but not in a.c, than it will search for possible problems in source code. And git has some other nice features like this, however the main reason for fw team was speed.

tardo · 2007-09-26 21:40:04

elegantly designed yes, but it's not simple by any means. it's still taking me a while to get used to it.

cactus · 2007-09-26 21:52:09

Blame toofishes and phrakture in my case.
I moved from mercurial, and after a bit of a painful initial learning curve, I really do enjoy using git quite a bit.

Dusty · 2007-09-26 21:59:24

cactus wrote:

Blame toofishes and phrakture in my case.

Minions of Xentac, of course. We are all minions of Xentac.

Dusty

elasticdog · 2007-09-26 23:12:02

cactus wrote:

Blame toofishes and phrakture in my case.
I moved from mercurial, and after a bit of a painful initial learning curve, I really do enjoy using git quite a bit.

Would you say you like it more than Mercurial, or just now that you've been forced in to using it, it's not bad after the learning curve? Which one do you use for personal projects?

codemac · 2007-09-26 23:46:38

After flipping between both... changing my opinion on which is better regularly, I would say I still like mercurial better. I switched my config directory over to git, and nothing has improved, other than an elitist and hard to understand community. Any "features" that git tends to say they have above mercurial, I've found are usually false.

Not to mention mercurial's ui >>>>>>>>> git's ui. Which is huge, don't act like it's not.

And has git fixed it's symlink handling? Because I know mercurial did

Last edited by codemac (2007-09-26 23:48:08)

nesl247 · 2007-09-27 00:08:47

Just curious, but was bzr ever tried, and what reasons were given for not using it if it was tried. If I recall, it's a lot more friendly, and still speedy.

cactus · 2007-09-27 01:23:46

elasticdog wrote:

Would you say you like it more than Mercurial, or just now that you've been forced in to using it, it's not bad after the learning curve? Which one do you use for personal projects?

I do prefer git, after using mercurial for a quite a while.

- Git is fast (very fast).
- The format patch and other random porcelain are great.
- The syntax and UI is a bit unruly, but once you get the hang of it, it's not a big deal.
- Once very awesome thing for me is the ability to do localized in-repo branching, just checkout a local branch, and your tree changes to that branch. Do stuff, commit, whatever. Then checkout your other branch, and bam. You can diff and merge between local branches, create new ones, throw ones away, etc.. all within the same tree (no need for external clones).
- The quick and easy rebase functionality is great too.

I guess I would say git is powerful, but certainly arcane.

I think mercurial got named branches a little while ago, so I haven't used them. I *think* they are similar to git branches, but I don't know for sure. The little I have read about them make them seem a bit funky.

I prefer git, but mercurial is a fine choice too.
I would say that pretty much everything out there besides these two sucks.

....and codemac is crazy by the way. map-my-scm-zealotry.

phrakture · 2007-09-28 16:58:39

ZOMGS git + vim + screen + foo + bar > *

Seriously. It's version control. It's just a storage mechanism for what you're actually doing. This is like debating what plastic container is best for your food. Glad is TOTALLY better than Tupperware for storing brats, let me tell you!

I like git because, well, as cactus put it, the "random porcelain" is great. It's fast, and does a lot. Sure there's a learning curve, but there's a learning curve for CVS too.

Getting hung up on this is silly. It's like caring about camelCase vs lowercase_and_underscores. It just doesn't matter. You need to roll with it. If you're on a project using git, use git. If the project is using darcs, use darcs. If they like PascalCasedVariableNames then use them.

Dusty · 2007-09-28 17:18:40

phrakture wrote:

Getting hung up on this is silly.

I agree but...

If you're on a project using git, use git. If the project is using darcs, use darcs. If they like PascalCasedVariableNames then use them.

... what if you are setting up a new project of your own and get to choose which system you use?

Dusty

PS:

It's like caring about camelCase vs lowercase_and_underscores. It just doesn't matter.

But when it comes down to tabs vs spaces, it DOES MATTER! :-D

High|ander · 2007-10-03 19:46:27

I have used CVS and SVN for a long time.

And finally i realized that CVS was not good enough for me, so I tried first GIT, but i didn't like it because of the gui and some misc stuff. But when I tried Mercurial, it was love at first sight. Great GUI, fast as hell, simple config and so on...

So, mercurial for me

eyolf · 2007-10-03 21:54:52

You should check out Linus Torvalds' presentation of it at the Googleplex something. It's on youtube (search for "linus git"), and it's hilarious. It's an hour long, but it's worth every second :-)

Arch Linux

#1 2007-09-26 21:06:22

Preference for git over other distributed version control?

#2 2007-09-26 21:30:26

Re: Preference for git over other distributed version control?

#3 2007-09-26 21:30:48

Re: Preference for git over other distributed version control?

#4 2007-09-26 21:40:04

Re: Preference for git over other distributed version control?

#5 2007-09-26 21:52:09

Re: Preference for git over other distributed version control?

#6 2007-09-26 21:59:24

Re: Preference for git over other distributed version control?

#7 2007-09-26 23:12:02

Re: Preference for git over other distributed version control?

#8 2007-09-26 23:46:38

Re: Preference for git over other distributed version control?

#9 2007-09-27 00:08:47

Re: Preference for git over other distributed version control?

#10 2007-09-27 01:23:46

Re: Preference for git over other distributed version control?

#11 2007-09-28 16:58:39

Re: Preference for git over other distributed version control?

#12 2007-09-28 17:18:40

Re: Preference for git over other distributed version control?

#13 2007-10-03 19:46:27

Re: Preference for git over other distributed version control?

#14 2007-10-03 21:54:52

Re: Preference for git over other distributed version control?

Board footer