Timeline for What are your favorite version control systems?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2011 at 1:39 | comment | added | Warren P | Mercurial doesn't NEED a book. | |
| Mar 7, 2011 at 7:51 | comment | added | Spoike |
I wouldn't say git was hard for me to learn. I came from CVS/SVN background, so it was easy for me to pick up git in a day (I learnt by starting a small project for myself and doing git init on it and went on the next day with pushing my changes to a repository in a backed up drive). I've noticed users of SourceSafe and ClearCase that need to relearn everything they know about version control having issues with it.
|
|
| Jan 27, 2011 at 3:28 | comment | added | Leo | For anyone using emacs, it takes about 5m to be productive in git and 1h to master more advanced features. I think git is the standard VCS for open source projects. | |
| Jan 26, 2011 at 14:23 | comment | added | l0b0 |
Having gone CVS -> Subversion -> Git in the last seven years, each transition has brought huge improvements. Git is much more robust (keeps everything on every machine), fast (mostly because of the distributed nature) and intuitive (but only after a while). Better docs, colors by default, cherry-picking (especially with git gui) and GNU Tools support don't hurt.
|
|
| Jan 26, 2011 at 14:00 | comment | added | sevenseacat | I've only started using git just recently, but I have to say I'm quite the fan. I've used RCS, CVS (urgh to both of those), SVN, bzr, and now git... and while there was a bit of a learning curve to git, it wasn't anything that couldn't be solved with a few searches on SO. And it seems to actually be quite hard to kill a git repository - even with all my shenanigans, I haven't managed to, yet... | |
| Jan 23, 2011 at 5:31 | comment | added | Tim | git sucks on windows, has a ridiculous learning curve and having to run cleanup on the repo is just lame. | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 9:00 | comment | added | LennyProgrammers | I assume that git, Mercurial etc are all quite good, but i went for git mostly because auf GitHub. GitHub feels nicer than comparable sites and many important projects are hosted there. GitHub lowers the barrier to contribute to Open Source a lot. | |
| Dec 12, 2010 at 21:45 | comment | added | Henry | I still haven't 'got' git yet. Branching and merging is cool but everything else is clunky. | |
| Dec 12, 2010 at 20:14 | comment | added | SingleNegationElimination | I'll agree that git on windows is a bit clunky, but I can't seem to find any way in which it is actually lacking compared to running it on a linux box. | |
| Dec 12, 2010 at 19:55 | comment | added | user1249 | msysgit is usable under Windows. | |
| Sep 27, 2010 at 15:19 | comment | added | Rook | @Khelben - There is some truth in that, yes. However, it also does seem to have the greatest amount of literature/articles/tutorials on the net dedicated to it. I regularly find Git books coming out, Mercurial - not so much (using Mercurial here as a contrast, since it's in many ways similar to Git). Can't say whether that's good or bad, but it does seem people are using it. | |
| Sep 27, 2010 at 14:44 | comment | added | Khelben | I think is important to say that git is hard. I really love it, but it's not something you can use learning it on a couple of days. You have to use it for a while and get angry until you mind switch... ;-) | |
| Sep 9, 2010 at 21:18 | comment | added | chauncey | I recently told a former coworker that I was in love with Git and I meant it. I regularly use SVN and Mercurial and like them but I love Git. | |
| Sep 5, 2010 at 4:48 | history | answered | Gaurav | CC BY-SA 2.5 |