News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Still hatin' on git: now with added Actual Reasons by itistoday on Thursday May 13, 2010 @01:23AM (#1343374)
> Git's user interface isn't perfect, but you're not going to get the "Mac of DVCSs" either. There's a reason for the complexity, doing stuff like merging together the work of three people is inherently complex.

This is a limitation of your imagination. You can write a DVCS that's easy to use and intuitive. Git has an absolutely terrible UI, it borders on idiotic.

One example of a DVCS with a good design and UI is a Bazaar. Sortof like the Mac a few years ago, no one uses it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually gains in popularity. I see two things holding it back right now:

- Launchpad is terrible and needs to be at least as good as Github.

- In concert with having a terrible "hub", Bazaar has a small community of users.

To gain users, it will need to out-innovate like Apple did. That means on all fronts, not just bzr itself but the community, marketing, and the websites that support it.

Re:Still hatin' on git: now with added Actual Reasons by pyre on Thursday May 13, 2010 @02:46AM (#1343526)
Issues that I've heard of with Bazaar:

- Being pure Python it doesn't have the same performance that git does. This may not show up in day-to-day usage, but things like 'convert this svn repo to Bazaar' tend to bring the bottlenecks/performance issues into the light.

- Bazaar made this weird design decision to have two revision numbers. a 'r12345' type revision number that is similar to SVN, but only applies to your local checkout of the repo, and a checksum (SHA1 or MD5) which applies globally (across different checkouts). I think that choosing a revision scheme similar to SVN's but one that doesn't map 1-to-1 with SVN is just asking for confusion from newbies. (I'm not entirely sure why one needs to have local and global revision numbers...)

Re:Still hatin' on git: now with added Actual Reasons by lars512 on Thursday May 13, 2010 @08:06AM (#1343939)
The use case for numeric local revisions is pretty clear. How many global operations do you really do? In reality, nearly all operations are local. So would you rather write r37 or 0b090d7267df? Why wouldn't you want the choice?
Re:Still hatin' on git: now with added Actual Reasons by pyre on Thursday May 13, 2010 @04:50PM (#1345621)
Two points:

1. You can abbreviate the SHA-1's in git

2. When you are collaborating on code, it's much more common to use a global identifier so that people can all know which commit is being referenced. It seems like you are making things needlessly complex when you are trying to maintain local and global revision numbers, for little (in my opinion) return. Sure 'r37' is easier to remember off-hand than '5b98d8f' (a shortened SHA1), but if you memorize 'r37' it only means something locally, you'll still have to lookup the global revision id when you want to communicate with others.

Re:Still hatin' on git: now with added Actual Reasons by koenigdavidmj on Thursday May 13, 2010 @01:15PM (#1344873)
>Being pure Python it doesn't have the same performance that git does.

Well, hg is nearly all Python (if I recall, their diff algorithm is the only C code) and it's quite comfortably fast. Seems to me that it's a design issue with Bazaar, and not something that one can simply blame on Python.

Re:Still hatin' on git: now with added Actual Reasons by pellicle on Thursday May 13, 2010 @03:47PM (#1345399)
How do you think the Bzr UI design compares with that of Hg?