Re: cvs better than git?

[Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen%sdaoden.eu@localhost>]

Greg A. Woods wrote in
<m1jnRG0-0036tsC@more.local>:
 |At Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:37:30 +0200, a l3x <w4m4ck%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
 |Subject: Re: cvs better than git?
 |> git follows a snapshot like approach to version control. but this view of
 |> history bites you as can be seen in "merge commits". requiring "rebasing"
 |> things and actually "rewriting history". this is what i dislike about \
 |> the design
 |> of git. it is just a hash based object store. maybe that's the reason
 |> why the cli is
 |> cluttered with lots of details. merge commits call for trouble and for
 |> rebase, this is why i consider the design of git as VCS broken at best.
 |
 |I wouldn't call it broken, not by a long shot -- it's just an outgrowth
 |of our history of using lesser tools which provide a per-file snapshot.

And i do not understand the reasoning given that people, including
myself, directly hacked in CVS aka RCS backing store.
You do not need to merge, or even are required to rebase, or
whatever in git.  Just do "git rm -rf '*'" and then dump whatever
you wanna (for example "git archive NAME-OF-BRANCH|tar -xzf -", if
that is how you configured it), then "git add .", "git commit -m
happy", and it'll gobble up.

Also, except for submodule stuff, you just cannot wreck git so
that you have to reclone it, as has been said in this thread
several times insistingly.  You do not spend a day with three
people to figure out what is wrong.  You have local and external
references (aka "git help remote"), and a commit history leading
to those "heads", to use Mercurial speech (iirc).  I never used
the reflog, and i for myself have to deal with only one project
which uses submodules, however.  But noone said you have to use
that.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)