On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Scott Robison <sc...@casaderobison.com>
wrote:
> > Based on reading {Stephan's message}, what do you agree or disagree with?
>
FWIW: i am in the small minority of my colleagues who regularly have
problems with git. They seem to be able to do the same things, click the
same buttons, and get their code in and out of where it should be.
> > It seems to me (after reading this and thinking about version control
> systems in a slightly new way for the first time today), git is focused
> less on securely keeping track of source code and far more on providing a
> toolbox of ways to reorganize code to "simplify" (I use that term loosely)
> social interactions between developers / users of git (aka collaboration).
> It's not that it can't keep track of source code, but that it considers the
> social aspects / reorganization tools to be more important, while at the
> same time being quite terse / obtuse in the documentation / usage area.
>
An interesting response. Hadn't thought of it that way.
> > Is that an unfair assessment on my part? I still readily agree that I'm
> a git newbie, and even a dvcs neophyte, and the reasons I use fossil have
> little to do with its distributed nature (though I'm using it more often
> that way as time goes by). Also that for certain project types where large
> / deep hierarchies of collaborators are at work, fossil is probably not an
> ideal solution. It certainly wouldn't work in the same way git is used by
> the linux kernel team.
>
Agreed completely.
> I'll be interested to hear back from him what he thinks.
>
Me as well.
--
----- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
http://gplus.to/sgbeal
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
