Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Steve Ramsey (steve_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-21 00:46:28
On Mar 20, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I have never heard a single technical argument, in all the endless
> mentions of Git among the people riding that bandwagon, why Git is
> better than SVN, or even why any DVCS is better than a centralized SCCS.
> I consider this whole move to Git and/or DVCS among "hip" programmers
> little more than a move to conform with what others are doing and feel
> I am perfectly willing to read well-chosen technical arguments but not
> from people already sold on one side or the other. But I really despair
> of anyone being able to present such arguments in the atmosphere created
> by Git fanatics and DVCS fanatics. The only thing I have gotten from all
> this is "I've tried it, I like it, and therefore its superior".
> Feel free, anyone, to point me to a purely technical discussion,
> article, whatnot, explaining the practical reasons why using a DVCS, or
> Git, is more productive and more pleasurable than using a centralized
> SCCS like Subversion.
For what its worth, here is a series of articles that sold me on DVCS (and Mercurial in particular, though thats neither here nor there) after spending quite some time wondering whether to bother:
Its a typically breezy Joel Spolsky piece, but it does cover use cases nicely.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk