David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 13:35 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: >> If by "really weird" you mean "nobody has any real complaints about >> the way it works and are happy it is close to what they were using >> before", then yes, they are using something "really weird". > > To be honest, I find it weird that Subversion even exists. Precisely > because it _is_ so close to what people were using before, as you point > out. I've never really understood why anyone would bother to change from > CVS to SVN -- it just seems to be part of the 'one VCS per project' > insanity.
Well, there are some real advantages, but I guess you never found out what they were. It was a boost for gcc. > At least with distributed version control systems, you get a real > benefit and not just change for the sake of it. Well, it's a real difference, for sure. It may be a benefit in some circumstances. > But again there seems to be a multitude of contenders because everyone > wants to write their own, rather than settling on one. That's true. > I've mostly given up on learning to use different version control > systems. Subversion was the last one I tried, and as soon as I stopped > banging my head against the wall, I just gave up on the project I was > trying to work on and did something else instead. There's plenty of > projects out there which need contributors and which _don't_ make life > harder for developers by requiring them to learn some new and > pointlessly different VCS. It's not possible for a VCS to be "different" -- it can only be different from some other VCS. And from that POV, git is "pointlessly different" from other VCS. > Later I learned about git-svn and just starting mirroring stuff from all > kinds of other VCSs into git, and life got a whole lot easier. I guess so, as long as semantically important stuff doesn't break when you do that. Andrew.
