Reminder:
That open source software you persist in calling "shit" probably represents man-years, even decades, of work. And you're getting it for free.
Don't be an ingrate.
@HerraBRE ... The interface is still crap tho.
@meredith_matthews You're talking about git. Hating on git is fashionable right now.
I remember life before git. It was SO MUCH WORSE.
Git absolutely revolutionised software development. Compare git with CVS or SVN or Visual SourceSafe... it's light-years better in almost every way.
People used to be afraid to fork because merging back was nigh impossible.
Sure, git could be better. Everything could be better. But calling it crap is... well, let's just say silly. You are being silly. ๐
@bob @meredith_matthews You might like fossil.
It seems like a genuinely better system in many ways.
I kinda wish it had caught on instead of git, but it's hard to compete with the Linus Torvalds Seal Of Approval.
@bob @meredith_matthews Ugh, sorry, redundant, you just mentioned fossil.
@HerraBRE @bob @meredith_matthews Not knowing any better, I'm willing to concede that Git's probably better for large codebases like the kernel but for most projects Mercurial would be way less confusing for the same practical functionality.
It'd be interesting to understand the reasons Git took off the way it did and Mercurial is so much in the shadows. Is it just Github? Seems to me Git popularity came first. Just fashion? I don't know.
@meredith_matthews @HerraBRE @bob I admit I haven't had the patience to put up with more than the minimum of actually using Git. I keep reading articles about it hoping for enlightenment but still haven't seen anything compelling it has that Mercurial doesn't.