Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Apr 19, 2007, 08:37 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704191033290.8822@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <8b65902a0704181308i41c878ebi88c03a929769ba39@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Guilhem Bonnefille wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> I don't know lot of corporate teams, but here, our developers are
> REALLY not motivated by VCS. It's only a way to share work. And I'm
> not talking about concurrent modification: lot of people in my office
> really think that the better model is the locked one.
> These people won't be the guy who set up the repo. These people only
> expect a system to:
> - retrieve and merge the job done by other people
> - archive their job for other people.

How is that not concurrent? If it really was not, there would be no need to merge.

And let's face it: merging with CVS is cumbersome. Why? Exactly because CVS pretends (and tries to make you, too!) that there is just one branch.

Guess what. There are two branches. And they are conflicting. So, once you really looked at the problem you really should agree that branches are the natural mental model to deal with conflicts.

> So for such people, I really think raw Git is much more complicated than 
> CVS/SVN.

I imagine that somebody dedicated enough -- i.e. not me -- could set up some standard aliases which do the CVS/SVN equivalent; we'd probably need to support something like

	[alias]
		ci = commit -a && push origin

which should not be all that hard.

Ciao, Dscho