Re: Git migration...
On 11-05-2008, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
>
> --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 06:04:38PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> I would better recommend beginning with "darcs" rather than "git". They
>> share almost all principle, but "darcs" is more user friendly. Once you
>> have get the basic principle of DSCM (get/pull/push/...), you should go
>> to git.=20
>
> If your end is using git, this looks like a waste of time to me.
> Also, IIRC, git documentation is way better than darcs'.
>
Darcs way of doing is to "ask question". This is not only a matter of
documentation, but also a matter of interaction. Experimenting with
darcs is simple and straight and give you a "sense of control", that git
is lacking (this is only a feeling).
Also darcs has a very small set of commands, which can be found in git.
In fact, 1.5 year ago, i give at tla and darcs a try (git was not on the
list at this time). If i don't have try darcs i think i would never has
understood tla (but i give up understanding tla, which is kind of too much
complex for a simple task).
Coming from darcs to git was easier...
Concerning the "waste of time", i disagree. Git is not the final SCM
around. There will be other. Understanding git, darcs, tla, cvs, svni,
rcs, sccs and other help you understand what will come next. Learning is
never a waste of time ;-)
But i think i am a little out of topic with this post. Sorry.
Anyway, Ralf is free to learn directly git (for learning git) or to try
to broaden the field and understand distributed SCM -- which includes
git.
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
ps: i am not trying to explain that darcs is better than git, i really
don't think so -- darcs has a lot of problems that git doesn't have...
Reply to: