Why using git would be awesome for nexuiz

[Alien]

What is the pain in diffing, reverting and then applying patches again?

[Morphed]

I knew that Mercurials forces under general HG command will crush pathetic git resistance

btw, this whole topic should look like that:
"hi, git is awesome change to git, git 4ever"
"no we don't"
"but... but this blah blah and that blah blah blah, so you have to change"
..... silence of pure ignore ......


but noooooooo, you have to convince that guy is wrong, or you will get sick ;P
but remind me, where was last time, that someone convinced other person is wrong, on internet

[Alien]

I knew that Mercurials forces under general HG command will crush pathetic git resistance

btw, this whole topic should look like that:
"hi, git is awesome change to git, git 4ever"
"no we dont"
"but... but this blah blah and that blah blah blah, so you have to change"
..... silence of pure ignorore ......


but noooooooo, you have to convince that guy is wrong, or you will get sick ;P
but remind me, where was last time, that someone convinced other person is wrong, on internet

You made my day (rolling) Amazing!

[[-z-]]

Yet, no one can tell, how git is better than mercurial.

This answer was posted a few pages back: http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/#hg

[divVerent]

Revision numbers help a lot when people report bugs.

"I found this bug and am using revision 3891".

If you then know you fixed the bug in revision 3893, you simply tell him to update.

With these weird hashes, you'd have to manually check out this revision and verify that the bug is fixed in it.

Anyway... another reason NOT to use git and hg is that they are weird tools that don't come preinstalled with distros, and thus are weird niche tools most people don't have and know how to use.

According to Debian Popcon:
31% of users have subversion
26% of users have cvs
10% of users have git-core
4% of users have mercurial (hg)
2% of users have darcs
1% of users have tla (GNU arch)

According to Ubuntu Popcon:
16% of users have subversion
12% of users have cvs
4% of users have git-core
2% of users have mercurial
0.4% of users have tla (GNU Arch)
0.3% of users have darcs

I think this alone is argument enough not to switch to git, as having to install a weird tool just to check out source of an open source application is really not the way how we should treat future developers. Maybe if git at least outpopularizes cvs (which is dying), we can think about switching to it.

Also think of users e.g. in computer pools who don't have root access there. They can't just "simply" install git, while it's very likely that they have svn preinstalled.

And Mercurial, darcs, arch are RIGHT out.

[alpha]

To keep it fair, I must say that hg is better than git. That is true. But svn is still better than hg.

[divVerent]

svn is clearly not "better" than hg or git, but my point is that for centralized development like in case of Nexuiz, we do not NEED any of their extra features (and thanks to git-svn, there is a nice adaptor so people can use git-style workflow on a svn master repository).

Plus, for centralized development, svn's simplicity is a clear advantage. Revision numbers help a lot with processing bug reports, for example.

Also, let's name the facts that svn integration in Apache as well as the svn web frontends are well proven and work fine, while the git frontends sitll are not very stable. E.g. github's web frontend often failed at providing downloads.

[[-z-]]

Uhh svn isn't installed on Ubuntu by default.. does Debian?? I don't think it's on Gentoo or Fedora either.

To be fair, svn has been out 5-6 years longer than git. In that time applications like Source Forge have popularized it's use.

I'm not sure how parasti's solution for revision numbers wouldn't work.

And for the record, Redmine supports git in the webfrontend revision browser.

I agree to some degree that the client front-ends for git are weak but they are improving but you can't possibly tell me Linux can do much better with frontends for SVN.

git-cola, giggle, qgit and git-gui aren't _that_ bad.

Oh and for windows users: http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/

[divVerent]

I only know the github.com one, and it plain sucks.

http://github.com/tex/fusecompress/tree/master

Without javascript, the download button does not even work!

(and back when I tried, some months ago, the download button also failed with activated JS)

Basically, switching to git brings ZERO (or actually, NEGATIVE, as lots of scripts need rewriting) advantage to Alientrap, a SMALL advantage to the few people who know git, and a huge disadvantage to people not knowing or not even having git installed.

[tundramagi]

According to Debian Popcon:
31% of users have subversion
26% of users have cvs
10% of users have git-core
4% of users have mercurial (hg)
2% of users have darcs
1% of users have tla (GNU arch)

According to Ubuntu Popcon:
16% of users have subversion
12% of users have cvs
4% of users have git-core
2% of users have mercurial
0.4% of users have tla (GNU Arch)
0.3% of users have darcs

Looks like debian users are more into development then... ubuntu users... hmmmmmm.