Re: GIT and CVS

[Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon at redhat dot com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Andrà PÃnitz <andre.poenitz@nokia.com>
>> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:35:59 +0200
>> 
>> * "Git sucks on MS-Windows". Git is usable on Windows
>
> Git _is_ usable on Windows, but it still sucks.  It doesn't integrate
> well with a native MinGW environment, I cannot easily invoke it from
> the Emacs VC interface, etc.  It's inconvenient.

I use emacs and git daily.  It would help if you could describe this.
How does it not integrate well with the MinGW environment? Is it a
matter of configuration, or some software limitation issue?
>
>> * The timing discussion revolves around use cases where git is slower, in
>> the single-digit or even fraction-of-a second range. The discussion, however, 
>> does not include any use cases reflecting workflows _enabled_ by that 
>> "slowness" that are not even remotely feasible in the CVS world. "git bisect"
>> comes to mind. Use it _once_ and you have set off a life time's worth of 
>> "wasting" half seconds on annotation. Not to mention the branching, 
>> merging and rebasing business. 
>
> It goes without saying that a modern dVCS is better than CVS in many
> ways.  But switching to a dVCS does not necessarily mean git, there
> are alternatives.  For example, bisecting is supported by bzr and
> Mercurial as well.
>
> So please don't make it sound like the only 2 choices are CVS and git.

Well the original topic was about CVS and GIT, so that should be
directed to me, over Andre.  But archer uses git, a lot of people
(unscientific I know) use the GDB git mirror.  So those are the options
that I constrained the conversation too.

Cheers,

Phil