Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Norman Gray scripsit: > I think those are mostly problems of git rather than Mercurial. It's > one of my objections to git that it requires you to have internalised > quite a lot about its view of the world, before you can make sense of > even simple actions. Mercurial tends to have a much more civil on-ramp. I agree. After many years of RCS, CVS, and svn, I started on a project three years ago that uses Mercurial, and all I had to learn at first was "clone", "pull", "update" (which "pull" helpfully suggests), "diff", "commit", and "push". I've also used "merge" and "resolve" when the client told me to, used "export" when a team member asked me to, and learned "log", "incoming" and "outgoing" on my own. Easy-peasy. My only use of git has been on projects where I don't have commit access, and it's "clone" and "pull" and that's it, fortunately for me. Besides, I hate being insulting to anyone, and I twitch slightly when I have to type "git pull". -- Being understandable rather than obscurantist poses certain risks, in that one's opinions are clear and therefore | John Cowan falsifiable in the light of new data, but it has the | cowan@c... advantage of encouraging feedback from others. --James A. Matisoff
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
