Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

[Marcin Kasperski <Marcin.Kasperski@softax.pl>]

> Actually, at this stage, I really think cogito just *complicates* git 
> usage. 

Agreed.

> So I don't think it's even true that new people should be pointed at cg 
> any more.

Google points to git.or.cz ;-)

> But compare setting up a git repository with setting up a CVS repository.
> With git, it's literally "git init", and you're done. No need to worry 
> about CVSROOT issues etc. Everything is self-contained. CVS is *hard* to 
> get into, by comparison.

I am in no way advocating CVS, but to be fair in such comparison, one
should mention also effort of *publishing* git repository and making it
available to remote clients. Initialized and configured CVS (or
subversion, or perforce, or ...) repo is something ready to be used by
remote clients.

Getting correct ssh keys in correct places is - for instance -
noticeable problem for many people. Especially if they use clients
(like plink) which natively use alternative key save format. Etc...

> So people coming from CVS/SVN have a double shock: they are supposed to 
> learn things that they "know" are hard (because CVS/SVN made them so damn 
> hard - don't tell me that SVN branching is easy, because it is *not* easy. 

The way SVN implemented branching (and tagging!) simply killed the idea
of using this tool seriously. IMO. Let's leave it.

I agree that git introduces plenty of excellent concepts. What it needs
is better docs (also, clearly known **SINGLE** master doc, just sth like
subversion book), cleaned command line interface (I feel that there are
just too many lowlevel commands visible for beginning user, maybe at
least one could split them into git-* for mere mortals and gitadm-* for
repository hackers), portability, and finally GUI.

				Best regards