8 Jan
2009
8 Jan
'09
10:42 p.m.
I've used git and if all you're doing is
committing and checking
out it's simple enough. But the fact its architecture is so sloppy
(imo) is what bothers me -- it nearly encourages you to mess with
things like history and the source directory, which is very much
against svn/hg's immutability.
Typical linux-way, they even acknowledge it :(.
Also, if it was clear
from the beginning that a collection of scripts starting with git-
blah won't work, why do them? And now conversion to "git
dosomething", though "git-daemon" still exists, and "gitweb" is
without any dash at all (which is not a command), and config files
are spread on the gentoo box in /etc/conf.d and just in /etc.
My portion of a rant.
Worth noting that mercurial's performance is
horrendous compared to
Git. I've been using Git for all my projects lately (ranging from
games to libraries, to scripts and other utilities). It works great.
I've yet to see actual numbers on that, especially on Windows systems.
Native
Git's performance in Windows doesn't really set records. I
just compared a log operation, it seems to take equal amount of time
doing a local git status and doing a remote svn status on my 256kbit/
s radiochannel.
I started that mirror because I couldn't get Hg to import our
repository. Most of the importing scripts I tried (why not do one
official? Migration from other VCS is a HUGELY important thing: look,
even GIT, with all fanatism involved, made a really working
interoperability tools!) didn't work, caused exceptions, and a couple
of other scripts we tried estimated the needed time to import our
repo as about several months.
The main problem with Hg is the same problem I have
with GCC,
Cygwin, etc -- it's a Linux tool built for Linux-based projects,
with a fanatic Linux-based fanbase that won't care much about
Windows support, stability and performance..
So true... I'm sick of those
fanatics, though recently I see a
decrease of their count, and a fresh view on FOSS world by people
(here in Russia).