Git 2.27 Demotes The Recently Promoted Transport Protocol v2, Continues SHA-256 Work

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Git 2.27 Demotes The Recently Promoted Transport Protocol v2, Continues SHA-256 Work

Git 2.27 is out as the newest version of this widely-used distributed revision control system...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Git-2.27-Released

[uid313]

I who was hoping for further usability improvements and user friendliness. To make it more predictable, logical, sane.

[Sin2x]

I who was hoping for further usability improvements and user friendliness. To make it more predictable, logical, sane.

There's still Mercurial for that.

[uid313]

There's still Mercurial for that.

Mercurial is useless even if it is great. If you want to use a source control system so you can collaborate then you need your collaborators to be familiar with that system, else they will or cannot collaborate. It's like if someone makes a new Facebook that is better than Facebook, then it is still useless if nobody uses it.

[Sin2x]

uid313 You make it sound as if SCCMs are rocket-science and hard to learn, and that Mercurial is not used anywhere. Both points are not true. Git and Mercurial both have their strong and weak sides and both are used by major companies. Git came on top usage-wise because of Github but it doesn't mean that Mercurial is anywhere near dead. You'd be surprised but even SVN is still used in a lot of places and is not going anywhere.

[uid313]

uid313 You make it sound as if SCCMs are rocket-science and hard to learn, and that Mercurial is not used anywhere. Both points are not true. Git and Mercurial both have their strong and weak sides and both are used by major companies. Git came on top usage-wise because of Github but it doesn't mean that Mercurial is anywhere near dead. You'd be surprised but even SVN is still used in a lot of places and is not going anywhere.

SVN is only used by old people. My personal experience is that people are not very receptacle to learning new SCCMs. I have contributed lots on GitHub, because it is easy. I would never even bother contributing to a project using anything other than Git, because when contributing it is important that the bar to entry is low.

[Vistaus]

I who was hoping for further usability improvements and user friendliness. To make it more predictable, logical, sane.

Yet you give no examples of things that could be improved.

[flashmozzg]

Yet you give no examples of things that could be improved.

The only thing I've found to be quite bad with git is options and naming - there is no rhyme or reason to eat. Each each option has different style of suboptions. Plenty of counter-intuitive things. You don't notice it once you've memorized all of them, but, IMHO, it's still the weakest point of git usability-wise.

[uid313]

Yet you give no examples of things that could be improved.

That the CLI be consistent because it is inconsistent. Example when you list commits, tags, remotes, branches, etc, sometimes you just type a command sometimes you need to specify the -l (lowercase L) option.
When you clone, or configure remotes, etc the syntax is different, example "url port", like sometimes it is a space, sometimes a colon, and I think sometimes a slash.

It's been worse though, Git has gotten better, some of the quirks have been fixed.

[pal666]

That the CLI be consistent because it is inconsistent. Example when you list commits, tags, remotes, branches, etc, sometimes you just type a command sometimes you need to specify the -l (lowercase L) option.

git log/branch/remote list without any options

When you clone, or configure remotes, etc the syntax is different, example "url port", like sometimes it is a space, sometimes a colon, and I think sometimes a slash.

it's

:port

in both cases

It's been worse though, Git has gotten better, some of the quirks have been fixed.

maybe it's time for you to read manual at last?