[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: 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 -

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

reply via email to

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