On 20/03/12 02:04, Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Mon Mar 19 2012, Anthony Williams<anthony.ajw-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
I've had numerous problems with git, including getting my local git repo into a state where it would neither push to nor pull from the remote repo. On the other hand, I've had no problems with Mercurial, even though I've used it on more projects, with more branching and merging.
In one case, I was having such difficulty with git that I used hg-git to import my git repo into mercurial, so I could deal with the branches and merges in a sane fashion, then exported back to git.
All my problems basically boil down to one thing though: the user interface (command line) to git doesn't map cleanly to the way I think about stuff, or the operations I wish to do, whereas the user interface for mercurial does. For me, mercurial is intuitive, whereas git is not, in a big way.
But for every story like that, there's an opposite one from the other community. For example, I find Mercurial's branch model completely insane. Multiple heads on a branch? What on earth were they thinking?! So on one project I used git-Hg to make the transition in the other direction.
Totally agreed. I was just sharing my experience. I find git unintuitive. YMMV, and apparently it does. I actually find the "multiple heads" thing quite intuitive! Anyway, as I said in the paragraph you skipped: git is better than subversion, so I'd rather use git than not change to a DVCS. Anthony -- Author of C++ Concurrency in Action http://www.stdthread.co.uk/book/ just::thread C++11 thread library http://www.stdthread.co.uk Just Software Solutions Ltd http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL, UK. Company No. 5478976