From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bakul Shah To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:13:36 -0800." References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <17932.1518572854.1@bitblocks.com> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:47:34 -0800 Message-Id: <20180214014749.9E42D156E80B@mail.bitblocks.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] SCMs Topicbox-Message-UUID: d01635b6-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:13:36 -0800 Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > +100 on DVCS and needless complexity. cvs or sccs provides all the > functionality I've ever needed in an SCM system. Although I confess I > have been seduced by git's ability to instantly create and switch between > branches. It makes trying out "what if" scenarios completely painless. > But it's not enough to convince me to use git except on very rare > occasions. Git has far too many subcommands and impementation warts but its underlying model has just 4 types of objects. The distributed part of git is conceptually fairly simple too. Over time I have used sccs, rcs, cvs, subversion, mercurial, git and a couple other SCMs. Each has its pros and cons. By now I primarily use git because I can run it on all the platform and it is quite fast. And there is an active ecosystem around it. Things like code review systems do help quite a bit with improving code quality (in my last job I used gerrit to brainwash people into following good practices by providing detailed core review comments). Dave MacFarlane's git client (dgit) does a decent job on plan9.