“Orders of magnitude” is probably out of line, and there’s always the case for “horses for courses” (or “tool for the job”, more broadly), but to say git is better than what appeared before (cvs, svn) could be interpreted as both true and useless. Pretty much any distributed source control management (DSCM) software is what modern development is using today, and better than the previous decades tools (cvs, svn). Git is but one example in the DSCM field. You mention it has a terrible UI, and I’m inclined to agree. The workflow might be described as terrible too, and maybe it’s a contributor to the UI. Git probably became what it is to a large extent because of the cult of personality of Linus, despite git itself. Sure it’s better than CVS, but in defence of GP post, it’s not unreasonable to push back because “good enough” (git) is standing in the way of “good” (fossil). That all said, cult or not, git has its network effect now, which is a powerful thing no matter what ones opinion of git is. I suspect we’re really probably remarkably in agreement wrt how fortunate we are in the code management field, and we should all be grateful, but that doesn’t preclude asking for more from our tools. We are privileged to be in a world where a fossil or mercurial, or bitkeeper user can “fall back” to git. We otherwise have an embarrassing amount of good choices for capable version control. Indeed, a good time to be alive.
reply