On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Florian Gilcher <flo / andersground.net> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>
>> Although I've never used darcs, the inability to properly handle
>> branches was actually one of the reasons why I gladly moved away from
>> mercurial (my first dscm).
>>
>> The upside of git is that it doesn't _force_ you to work with separate
>> checkouts for separate branches, although you _can_ do it: just clone
>> the local repo --git is even smart enough to hardlink blobs when
>> possible. I say this is a strong vote in favour of git, as it allows
>> both branching workflows (in-place and separate checkout).
>
> I'm on the "i don't want to think to much about it" or "lazy bastard" side.

Me too.

> For example, one of my main reasons for darcs is it's nice cherry-picking
> interface that is the _default_ way of handling it. Sure, i could use git
> cherry-pick and friends, but Darcs gives me the collection of features I
> really like at my fingertips.

Out of curiosity, what's so special about darcs cherry-picking interface?

> Also, I tend not to play with branches too much, but only push the patches I
> really want back to upstream/trunk. Thats the default way in darcs.

The default in darcs is that you have to choose which commits to push
upstream everytime you push? And that's a plus? 8-D

> Sure, I could push git into my workflow, but that would mean I would have to
> costumize git everytime I change computers. It does a lot, but i only need
> half of it and it always takes me time to figure out which half I wanted to
> use.

Why would you need to customize git? Having a different workflow with
it doesn't mean having to change git parameters, it just means using
it in a different way.

> Also, if you allow both workflows, which link will you put on your website?
> ;)

That's definitely up to whoever maintains the website 8-D

> As I said before: your mileage may vary. I don't like git that much and I
> also have a problem with hypes. So I would tend to wait until the
> "revolution" is over.
> But I support the democratic process ;).

Honestly, I don't see this whole "hype" thing about git.

If anything, I see a lot of FUD being spread about it, like for
example its being extreeeeeemely complex and unfriendly and with an
unfamiliar interface, which is something totally opposite to my
experience: I didn't find it less friendly or less familiar than, say
mercurial (of course there's the clear distinction between committing
and pushing, but that's shared by all distributed vcs so it's only
unfamiliar to people used to working with centralized vcs only); in
fact, I found myself more comfortable with it than with hg.

It *is* to be said that my experience with git started with 1.5.x
versions, which (from what i've read), made gigantic steps forward in
the UI from 1.4.x and earlier, so I possibly spared myself the initial
scare ealry adopters might have had. So maybe the revolution is
already over ;-)



-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta