Re: [dev] [suckless] Migration to git

From: Chris Down <chris_AT_chrisdown.name>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:10:38 +0800

To be fair I think there are a multitude of ways in which git is less sucky
than hg:

- multiple binaries
- significantly more modular design framework
- doesn't assume the user is an idiot (which is probably why so many people
have problems with it)
- there are plenty of things of *daily use* in git that are ridiculously
difficult in hg (branch stuff, mostly)

But for the use of a few nerds, where usually only ~2 people are regular
committers, either will do just fine.

Chris

On 13 February 2013 07:56, Jens Nyberg <jens.nyberg_AT_gmail.com> wrote:

> 2013/2/13 Chris Down <chris_AT_chrisdown.name>:
> > Care to give some examples of where git sucks more than hg? I've found it
> > particularly un-sucky, but non-intuitive in places.
> >
>
> People who can not grasp git thinks it's bad, it's that simple. Irony
> of it all is that it is actually a very simple design that is both
> fast, reliable and annoyingly easy to work with. Sure we could cope
> without all that syntactic sugar (a suckless frontend anyone?) but
> that is not the fault in design but simply the tools which has way to
> much options in order to please everyone and their mother.
>
> > On 13 February 2013 07:28, Sam Watkins <sam_AT_nipl.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:25:18AM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> >> > I am proposing a migration of all mercurial to git repositories.
> >>
> >> I've been working with git lately, trying to do some unusual things,
> >> and I need to say this is one of the least suckless pieces of software
> >> I've ever worked with. It's complex, obscure, inconsistent, quirky...
> >>
> >> You migrated from hg to git, because *git* sucks less??? Say WHAT?!
> >>
> >
>
>
Received on Wed Feb 13 2013 - 01:10:38 CET