[Top][All Lists]

[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: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:57:53 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.12.1 (Linux/2.6.30-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.3.1; x86_64; ; )

Am Mittwoch, 23. September 2009 14:16:47 schrieb Sergiu Ivanov:
> > You have different instances of the history, but all data _which isn't
> > changed_ is a simple hardlink.
> Aha, I see.  Sorry for talking rubbish :-(

No problem. 

Btw: There is an extension which makes two working directories share exactly 
the same history, so your thought isn't that rubbish. 

> > That depends on what you call Guru :-)
> [paragraphs shuffled]
> > But to know enough about Mercurial for 95% of the use cases you need
> > far less time than for git. A few quotes I collected to back that
> > up:
> I'd call a Guru a person who knows what to do in 99% use-cases :-)
> IMHO, becoming a Guru in any domain isn't any easier than in any other
> one.  However, becoming an average (or even advanced) user may be
> easier somewhere.

At least as long as the domain is of similar complexity (as in the case of two 
distributed VCS) I think you're right in that. 
> A smooth learning curve is a great thing, though :-) I think I like
> smoother learning curves better :-) Though I wouldn't say that the
> learning curve in git is so extremely steep.

At least it still has some not-so-small stumbling blocks in it - for example 
its extremely long help output. 

But it's become a good deal better since I first tried it (for example it now 
suggests options when I mistype a command). 

Best wishes, 

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

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