Re: cvs better than git?

[Andreas Krey <a.krey%gmx.de@localhost>]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:08:17 +0000, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
...
> All those upvotes DO NOT indicate a good question. They indicate a
> broken design.

They indicate a unixy design - it is *much* more simple and especially
open than, say, subversion.

> Even the simplest of tasks are difficult to impossible
> with Git.

Er, sorry. It is subversion where the answer to 'how do I do X'
usually is 'you should have done Y earlier' (and where cvs makes
you not even get the idea to ask the question in the first place).

None of the questions you quoted has 'you can't' as an answer, and most
have an answer that is shorter than the stackoverflow url of the question.

> My position is, avoid Git if possible. It is a time sink that takes
> time away from real work.

You mean unlike svn where you need a weird explanation ('mixed revision') why
'svn log .' doesn't show the commit you just made with 'svn commit filename'? :-)

Granted, there are two groups of users: Those that wants to know about and deal
with version control as little as possible (and in extremis just leave their
workspace, and let others do the commits), and those that *use* git because
there are lots of ways it can help that simply don't exist in other vcses.

To the latter, git is a godsent, to the former gitless is probably a good idea,
and the pertinent xkcd rings true.

- Andreas

-- 
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800