Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

The thing about git is that the key concepts of its internals are sufficiently clean and sufficiently fundamental to distributed version control that they are both easy to understand and very useful to understand.

So what you say isn't really true. I would improve it to say that the existing terminology doesn't appear logical until you have learned about those basics. This is not the fault of git: any system becomes incomprehensible if you approach it with concepts in your head that are incompatible with that system.

A complete beginner may not want to start out by learning those internals, and that's okay. But at some point, it definitely becomes a worthy investment to take the mere hour or two that it takes to read through the relevant parts of the documentation.




It's nothing to do with being decentralised or not. There are decentralised version control systems with better command line interfaces. Some of them even predate git. Mercurial has a better interface. So does darcs.


Strongly disagree that Mercurial has a better interface. I've worked on projects in cvs, svn, git, and hg, and I have to say I found hg's interface nearly as confounding as cvs.

Not wanting to argue which perspective is right, just that you can't make a broad sweeping statement that Mercurial has a better interface




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: