Re^5: Losing faith in CPAN - unresponsive module authors (git vs. svn)

In general I agree that distributed systems are much better than centralized ones.

<rant>

The reason that I don't advocate git usage is that I simply can't work with it.

I tried, a few times already. With different tutorials and with different tasks in mind, and I always failed.

Last time I tried to bisect a regression in perl. There's that cool git-bisect tool which really works great, but it always reported some errors about files that would be overridden with a merge. It took me quite some time that I could work around those with git-clean (no tutorial on git-bisect mentioned that, and I don't think I was doing something unusual).

After I found out, I managed to make a bisect, report the offending changeset to p5p, and rgs answered that it didn't seem to be the right one. D'oh.

I keep hearing good things about git, so I try it out from time to time, but so far it was always disappointing.

Am I too dumb to work with git? Or do the various tutorials suck? or is there some underlying concept that I have to grok, and then all problems turn into a harmless cloud on the distant horizon?

Am I the only one who can't seem to get along with git?

</rant>

Comment on Re^5: Losing faith in CPAN - unresponsive module authors (git vs. svn) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Losing faith in CPAN - unresponsive module authors (git vs. svn) by Fletch (Bishop) on Jun 25, 2008 at 15:07 UTC
It's definitely still "user hostile" software, but I hear anecdotally that recent versions (post 1.4 I believe, post 1.5 even more so) are much improved over even 6 months ago. I've been using it mirroring svn at `$work` on my desktop to have my own local branches (rather than resorting to svk or kludgy scripts to try and do it correctly in SVN) and I've been very happy with it. I admittedly haven't been using some of the fancier features (like git-bisect), but what I have used works pretty well and when I have hit problems `#git` on freenode has been very helpful working things out. I'd also check out Mercurial as well if you haven't, as the feature set's mostly the same as git. I did most of my initial DSCM experimentation with hg and then moved to git with no troubles. (As for why I switched, I just "clicked" better with git than hg when I actually started using it more extensively I think.) The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie.	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: Losing faith in CPAN - unresponsive module authors (git vs. svn)
by Fletch (Bishop) on Jun 25, 2008 at 15:07 UTC

It's definitely still "user hostile" software, but I hear anecdotally that recent versions (post 1.4 I believe, post 1.5 even more so) are much improved over even 6 months ago. I've been using it mirroring svn at $work on my desktop to have my own local branches (rather than resorting to svk or kludgy scripts to try and do it correctly in SVN) and I've been very happy with it. I admittedly haven't been using some of the fancier features (like git-bisect), but what I have used works pretty well and when I have hit problems #git on freenode has been very helpful working things out.

I'd also check out Mercurial as well if you haven't, as the feature set's mostly the same as git. I did most of my initial DSCM experimentation with hg and then moved to git with no troubles. (As for why I switched, I just "clicked" better with git than hg when I actually started using it more extensively I think.)

The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.

[reply]
[d/l]