Two points: 1) As much as folks (like me, Johnny) don't like it: git is THE most widely-used rcs in the world, by far; I consider it just a kind of annotated tar file.
2) git complexity (and user confusion) comes about due to the lack of conceptual integrity of the design / command structure. I believe it is this problem which annoys most. To work on this problem, MIT researchers published two papers: - Purposes, Concepts, Misfits, and a Redesign of Git <https://spderosso.github.io/oopsla16.pdf> S. P. De Rosso and D. Jackson. In *Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA 2016)* - What's Wrong with Git? A Conceptual Design Analysis <https://spderosso.github.io/onward13.pdf> S. Perez De Rosso and D. Jackson. In *Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming & Software (Onward! 2013)* If you want a thirty-minutes summary presentation, watch "What’s Wrong With Git?" from Git Merge 2017 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31XZYMjg93o>. The end result of this work is Gitless, a simple version control system built on top of Git. https://gitless.com/ Perhaps, if there were a commitment to stick with gitless, the confusion and pain that git sometimes creates could be eliminated. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 6:35 AM mayur...@kathe.in <mayur...@kathe.in> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 05:58 PM IST, Johnny Billquist < > b...@update.uu.se> wrote: > > > On 2020-06-17 14:24, Mayuresh wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:07:46PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: > > >> I could go on about my objects, and the possible risks and issues, > but I > > >> think if this rant isn't enough to start you thinking, I doubt any > more text > > >> from me will change anything. > > > > > > Risk management is important. Given we do that, utilizing such > services to > > > our benefit isn't so bad - for example as a mirror rather than primary > > > storage. > > > > > > I mean I'd not completely hold myself back from using such services, > if I > > > can benefit from them, as long as I am not being critically dependent > on > > > them. > > > > What is the benefit then? Now I'm being curious... > > > > I mean, if we would be having the primary repository our self, and just > > have them be a mirror. Just a simple way of adding resources? Is the > > load of people checking the code out that big? How much can we save > > there then? Or what other benefits do you see? > > do you think high-quality, performant hardware and high-volume, quality > network connectivity turns out to be as low-cost as "free" (service from > github)? > i second that idea of having a budget git repository on hardware owned by > "the netbsd foundation" which is mirrored by github and takes care of all > the load of all developers checking in/out their code. > the project could save big-time on costs, have a safe primary repository > of all the code, while reaping all the benefits of a large corporation > offering free high-performance services to be at the developer-facing end