Now that the dust has settled, are you impressed by git?
Now that the dust has settled, are you impressed by git?
Noah Robinson
Other urls found in this thread:
Angel Scott
im impressed how much of a faggot op is
Logan Rogers
I use it but I'm not impressed. SVN worked just fine.
Robert Lopez
>Now that the dust has settled
Have you been in a fucking coma for the past decade?
Jose Rogers
I love git.
sometimes, i delete all my work cause im retarded.
Its okay though, i've chosen the correct career path.
Aaron Sanders
I'm with this guy. It's definitely better than TFS though.
Jose Jenkins
fossil > git. Don't care about the others.
Gavin Russell
Yes.
It is quite simple yet works very well in the majority of cases.
Dominic Bailey
version control shoud be made by the fs
Brandon Smith
From what I've seen of fossil, they just advertise themselves as git but worse.
Less modular, fewer features, etc..
Then they justify it by saying that people have used these features to do really great things, but they don't usually use them so the features shouldn't be included.
Selling yourself based on the things you can't do is a bold, and stupid, move for them to make. Especially considering the lack of any actual practical benefits that they can list.
Charles Robinson
I don't think drh is "advertising" it in any sense. It's just his version control software and you can use it if you want. Like things used to be.
Gavin Turner
>Like things used to be.
Which version control software is there now that you can't use if you want?
>I don't think drh is "advertising" it in any sense.
I go to the fossil website, look for reasons to use it over git, get a list of basically nothing consequential and a bunch of missing features from fossil.
Isaiah Ross
CVS > SVN
harmful.cat-v.org
Nathaniel Ross
it saved me a lot of time on some occasions, pretty based software
i should've learnt it earlier
version control ok, but then how about sharing on remote repos ? how would different file systems communicate between themselves ?
Carson Hill
Perforce > Fossil > SVN > Mercurial > Git
Sebastian Phillips
no I just switched to CVS
Ryan Torres
Yes. The most respectable trait a piece of software can have is just werking and git just werks.
Connor Butler
Peak brainrot if true, 2/10.
Brandon Taylor
That's not advertising you frothing retard
Isaac Lopez
No not really, it's a crappy bloated and needlessly convoluted imitation of Mercurial.
the only good thing to come out of Git is Github ending up being owned by Microsoft and all the freetards being forced to used it otherwise literally nobody will contribute to their project.
Noah Price
Maybe it isn't a shitty banner ad on a shitty news site, but I find a list of reasons to use something to be the most telling and persuasive advertising there is in technical matters.
To advertise is to make public the qualities of a given product, and the material on their website that lists what they consider to be the benefits of their product certainly falls within this definition.
How about you justify how it isn't advertising before you resort to name calling?
Cameron Flores
faggot, you seriously have no better arguments? It sounds like you're just mad he's shitting on git in favor of his own approach, regardless of how he's never once actively pushed his ideals down your throat
Chase James
>it's a crappy bloated and needlessly convoluted imitation of Mercurial
You know that mercurial came later right? Not by much technically but still.
Bentley Miller
Dropbox
Jack Long
What do you mean here?
I said that the material on the site didn't convince me, then you took issue with how I classified this material.
How did you want me to respond other than with the simple fact that I was correct in my classification?
I never accused anyone of pushing stuff down my throat, I just said the site was touting around the fact that fossil is inferior in many ways to git.
If you were using it, that would be an instance of the designers' ideas holding you back for no reason, whereas git exposes all tools without opinion.
Advertising something based on it being less flexible and having fewer features seems backward to me.
The big thing about how you couldn't do the linux style of development in fossil just comes off to me as saying that you couldn't do something like linux in fossil, but you could do anything fossil can in git.
There is a serious lack of compelling reasons to use it over git.
In pages of writing they fail to show me a situation where fossil outperforms git; it's as simple as that.
What they do show is a whole bunch of ways fossil is less modular or otherwise overreaching compared with git.