Re: Adding Git to Better SCM Initiative : Comparison

From: Jan Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz>
Date: Nov 30, 2007, 18:34 UTC
Message-ID: <20071130183414.GD30048@efreet.light.src>
In-Reply-To: <20071129200710.GA3314@steel.home>

On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 21:07:10 +0100, Alex Riesen wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Jakub Narebski, Thu, Nov 29, 2007 03:26:12 +0100:
> > +                <s id="git">
> > +                    Medium. There's Git User's Manual, manpages, some
> > +                    technical documentation and some howtos.  All
> > +                    documentation is also available online in HTML format;
> > +                    there is additional information (including beginnings
> > +                    of FAQ) on git wiki.
> > +                    Nevertheles one of complaints in surveys is insufficient
> 
> "Nevertheless" (two "s").

I think it's not amount of documentation that's insufficient, but rather the organization. The problem is not that the information is not there, but that it's sometimes not easy to find.

> BTW, I wouldn't call the level of documentation "Medium" when compared
> to any commercial SCM. How can they earn more than "a little", when
> compared to any opensource program?

I don't know that many commercial SCM, but clearcase does have more than "a little" documentation.

Show 13 quoted lines

> [...]
>
> > @@ -1106,6 +1165,10 @@ TODO:
> >                      There exists some HTTP-functionality, but it is quite
> >                      limited.
> >                  </s>
> > +                <s id="git">
> > +                    Good.  Uses HTTPS (with WebDAV) or ssh for push,
> > +                    HTTP, FTP, ssh or custom protocol for fetch.
> > +                </s>
> 
> You forgot bundles (aka SneakerNet).
> Again, compared to everyone else it is "vastly superior" :)

In fact at least darcs and bzr can also do SneakerNet.

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz>