On 07/06/2011 07:19 AM, Kevin Horn wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Laurens Van Houtven <_@lvh.cc> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:22 PM, David <david@silveregg.co.jp <mailto:david@silveregg.co.jp>> wrote:
Most people who stay on windows do not find cygwin or even CLI tools an acceptable solution.
So, the argument isn't that git is worse on Windows than it is on *nix: it's just that Windows users don't want to use CLI tools?
cheers, David
cheers lvh
Not in my opinion. I find hg, bzr, and svn all easier to use on Windows than git, and I use them all from the command line.
But I think you will think the same on unix, that is you will prefer hg/bzr to git on unix as well. I don't think someones will prefer hg over git on windows and prefer git over hg on unix, frankly. As for which is simpler, I think those differences are much more superficial than people want to think, and some concepts introduced in hg/bzr for simplicity sake actually harmful in the long term (e.g. natural revision number, especially as used in bzr). Git UI is not super consistent, but neither is hg as soon as you use e.g. named branches and bookmarks. cheers, David