From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Lear Subject: Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:49:47 -0500 Message-ID: <17958.19499.813637.324723@lisa.zopyra.com> References: <20070417104520.GB4946@moonlight.home> <8b65902a0704170841q64fe0828mdefe78963394a616@mail.gmail.com> <200704171818.28256.andyparkins@gmail.com> <20070417173007.GV2229@spearce.org> <462521C7.2050103@softax.com.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Marcin Kasperski , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 18 18:50:25 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HeDML-0008Rl-WB for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:50:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2992859AbXDRQuR (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:50:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2992861AbXDRQuR (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:50:17 -0400 Received: from mail.zopyra.com ([65.68.225.25]:60363 "EHLO zopyra.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992859AbXDRQuP (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:50:15 -0400 Received: (from rael@localhost) by zopyra.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id l3IGo5C27918; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:50:05 -0600 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 7.18 under Emacs 21.1.1 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 09:07:55 (-0700) Linus Torvalds writes: >... >Actually, at this stage, I really think cogito just *complicates* git >usage. ... As a relative newbie to git, I agree. At our company, we did not even seriously consider using cogito. Just easier to jump right in to the frosty waters. >What _is_ true is that git is simply different from CVS. I don't think >it's necessarily harder to understand or use (in fact, I would argue that >git is a lot _easier_ to understand), but it is *different*, and it has a >ton more capabilities. Well, differences can lead to difficulties. Here are a few of the differential difficulties we have faced: 1) There seems to be an innate desire on our part to just "update this branch from that one on that repository". We have been caught several times pulling onto the wrong branch, pushing onto the wrong one, because we assumed the behavior of push/pull was "update this branch, the one I am on right now, and ONLY this branch", but what we got was a cross-branch merge. Coming from a CVS background, and there not having "undo" very easy, this caused severe stress. Easy enough to undo, once we understood, but does not obviate the stress. 2) Addressing of branches. When to use bare 'git pull/push', when to use 'git pull/push branch' when to use 'git pull/push branch:branch', have been continually confusing to us. 3) Funkiness of non-bare repos ---- we really got stung trying to push into one. Seemed like it took us days to figure out what was going on. 4) Near disaster using git with ssh to push to our company repo. In our company, we have a very loosy-goosy IT group. We started using git with ssh and had serious permissions problems. If we had used the git protocol from the start, that would have avoided this mess, but support for that came too late. Git has gotten much better than when we started with it just at the beginning of this year. Remote support, branch tracking, lots of stuff has gotten much, much better. I could go on and on about the good things, but it is important to caution --- not frighten --- newbies with tales from others who have been stung. Bill