[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mercurial vs. git
From: |
Arne Babenhauserheide |
Subject: |
Re: Mercurial vs. git |
Date: |
Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:57:17 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.30-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) |
Am Samstag, 24. Oktober 2009 06:10:38 schrieb olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net:
> Complexity? I still think that Git is actually very simple in its
> fundamental concepts. It only seems complex to people who haven't yet
> fully mastered these concepts...
That's true with any system, no matter how complex :)
As soon as you master something, it is easy. It's the same for strange
notations in physics which can get a student to freak out at first contact :)
But there's a reason why the engineers don't use those...
> When regularily working on a project using a certain VCS, it's a much better
> idea to actually get familiar with this VCS...
That depends on the cost of that - and on the question how big the role of the
VCS is in your contribution. I'm active in many projects, and I use Mercurial
in all others, so it just doesn't make sense to let myself get bitten by git
often enough to learn more of it than the basics. Also the VCS is a very minor
part in my contribution: I write the text and I just use the VCS to store and
share it. I don't prepare patches or similar, and the only thing which really
matters is the result - the latest version.
I tried learning git, though, but gave up when it took too much time (much
more than "just a few hours" - it costed me several nights).
So that's wy I decided to scrap it and rather invest the time in learning how
to use Mercurial to interact with git.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
- singing a part of the history of free software -
http://infinite-hands.draketo.de
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.