Re:Git 2.0 release notes
by anton_gogolev on Wednesday March 12, 2014 @10:28AM
(#7385786)
There are no objective criteria to measure usability, so Git cannot possibly be "objectively pretty good", sorry.
Again, popularity has nothing to do with merit. It's a pure happenstance that Git was chosen over Mercurial for kernel development, and it all went from there.
The UX of Git cannot possibly be improved in the foreseeable future as it will be a _massive_ pile of breaking changes with people moaning all over the internet.
Git is not as bad as you claim, and Hg is not as good as you claim. Yes, I have used both.
If you're looking to derail this post and do some trolling, then congratulations. You're off to a great start.
I'm also aware that nothing you said actually dealt with the fact that git is not unusable. In fact, it's objectively pretty good—if it weren't, we'd all still be using SVN.
What you seem to be saying is that you prefer the UX of Mercurial. Cool, that's fine - but I'd be keen for people to invest their time in improving the experience of using git, rather than bellyaching about perceived differences which aren't really all that big.
(As an aside, I don't really agree that there's a problem with git's usability. It's a complex tool, if you want it to be. But for day-to-day distributed SCM, you'll rarely have to care about most of that.)