Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Bronek Kozicki (brok_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 10:38:01
On 20/03/2012 13:45, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>> You should have used rebase to refresh your repository, not merge :)
>> Also when things are really starting to look bad, your best help are two
>> commands "git reflog" and "git reset --hard" :)
> Hmm strange - I never ran into something like that with SVN, where somebody
> told me 'you should have done it this way and not that way' (and yes, before
> you ask, I've had quite a bit of exposure to GIT myself).
> Let's face it, GIT is a usability nightmare (IMHO) and it will not enable
> anything we couldn't do with SVN (or with Mercurial for that matter) if we
> only wanted to (IHMO, at least I still have to see somebody giving me that
> use case).
If ability to do distributed development and scalability are not
convincing arguments for you, I don't know what will. Yes you have to
learn git in order to use it efficiently, just as you once learned
basics of version control. Some of these basics no longer apply when you
switch to DVCS and whilst some tools (e.g. hg) try to follow old habits,
such approach brings its own idiosyncrasies (many heads to branch).
Anyway I'm not going to try to convince anybody. There are people doing
the work to ensure future scalability of boost version control, I'm
grateful for that and not going to stifle the effort. There will be
always people complaining about necessity to unlearn old habits and
learn new tools, but I think in this case it's just this: necessity. I
believe boost code base simply won't scale without better version control.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk