From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20070417104520.GB4946@moonlight.home> <8b65902a0704170841q64fe0828mdefe78963394a616@mail.gmail.com> <200704171818.28256.andyparkins@gmail.com> <20070417173007.GV2229@spearce.org> <462521C7.2050103@softax.com.pl> <8b65902a0704181308i41c878ebi88c03a929769ba39@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Marcin Kasperski , git@vger.kernel.org To: Guilhem Bonnefille X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 18 22:19:35 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 1HeGco-0000vC-Pc for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:19:35 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2992565AbXDRUT1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:19:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2992567AbXDRUT1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:19:27 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:45223 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992565AbXDRUT0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:19:26 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id l3IKJEYC027033 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:19:15 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id l3IKJ7UP001965; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:19:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: <8b65902a0704181308i41c878ebi88c03a929769ba39@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.469 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.119__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.177 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Guilhem Bonnefille wrote: > > Yes, but I think that, as Git has ton more capabilities, user has to > understand more things than with CVS. I do agree. The whole "branch" thing is something you can ignore in CVS, but it's simply very hard to ignore in git, because even *if* you just follow another repository, git kind of forces you to be aware of the difference between "local branch" and "remote tracking branch". I think that's fairly fundamental to being distributed, though. > I don't know lot of corporate teams, but here, our developers are > REALLY not motivated by VCS. It's only a way to share work. And I'm > not talking about concurrent modification: lot of people in my office > really think that the better model is the locked one. Sure. At one level they may even be right. It's just that the locked model obviously doesn't work past a certain scenario. But explaining that to somebody who doesn't even think outside his own scenario is pointless. So no question: git has a level of abstraction and perhaps requires a higher-level view than RCS and CVS do. And I can well imagine that it is seen as more "difficult" because of that. I just haev to say that I worked with CVS at a commercial company for seven years, and I *did* do things like branches and merges etc, and despite workign with it at that level (not that I was the expert by any means: we had a person who came in with the main job literally being the tools around CVS to make branching more convenient etc), I seriously feel that CVS was a *lot* harder to get into than it is to get into git. > So for such people, I really think raw Git is much more complicated > than CVS/SVN. I do wonder what we could do about that. I think you can use git in the "SVN tracker only" model, and I really thought it was pretty damn simple, but ... Linus