Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

On 4/18/07, Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] wrote:

What _is_ true is that git is simply different from CVS. I don't think
it's necessarily harder to understand or use (in fact, I would argue that
git is a lot _easier_ to understand), but it is *different*, and it has a
ton more capabilities.

Yes, but I think that, as Git has ton more capabilities, user has to
understand more things than with CVS.

I don't know lot of corporate teams, but here, our developers are
REALLY not motivated by VCS. It's only a way to share work. And I'm
not talking about concurrent modification: lot of people in my office
really think that the better model is the locked one.
These people won't be the guy who set up the repo. These people only
expect a system to:
- retrieve and merge the job done by other people
- archive their job for other people.
Nothing more. No interest for topic branches (they are simple minded
;-)), no interest for data integrity (it's "not their job"),
interested in problem with connected system ("hey, CVS server is down,
would you like a coffee while waiting IT detects that ?")...

So for such people, I really think raw Git is much more complicated
than CVS/SVN.

-- 
Guilhem BONNEFILLE
-=- #UIN: 15146515 JID: guyou@im.apinc.org MSN: guilhem_bonnefille@hotmail.com
-=- mailto:guilhem.bonnefille@gmail.com
-=- http://nathguil.free.fr/