Subject: Re: Newbie grief

From: Rich Pixley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 13:52:35 -0700

On 5/3/12 13:14 , Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>> "Rich" == Rich Pixley<[email-masked]>  writes:
> Rich>  Corporate mandate.  Political decision made without discussion
> Rich>  with the people who would be using it.
>
> Sounds like you put two strikes against git before you even invoked the
> first command, with that attitude.
>
> If you are *serious* about having *git* work for you, it will.
> Thousands of projects are using git every day.
>
> But if you're looking at git like "it's not hg, and I already hate
> that", you'll end up sounding like you have in the past few days.
>
> Methinks *this* is the actual problem.  Not git.
It's not just hg.  It's other source code control systems as well.  
Check out any of the other daggy guys.  So sure, I'll admit a bias for 
current technology over older tech.

Another part of the problem is that git is badly designed, poorly 
documented, and the terminology is inconsistent.  That, and the 
limitations make for a pretty steep learning curve.

And a third part of the problem is that coming from a number of other 
daggy tools, I was expecting a lot more out of git that what git 
actually provides.  Certainly, git can be used to do whatever, but a 
pile of sand and some plastic can be made into a computer too, if we're 
willing to put enough effort into it.

But hey, I'm using it.  (I refuse to work with perforce).  I had an even 
worse bias against mecurial before I started using it.  The big learning 
curve was from the linear tools to the daggy tools which happened for me 
with monotone.

--rich