Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bigstrat2003 948 days ago
Exactly this. To be perfectly honest, the git CLI is so bad that I would take pretty much anything over git. I would prefer SVN over git, despite that product being older and with less functionality, just because it's at least easy to use.

I learned and use git because that's just how the industry has moved, and I'm pragmatic enough to just roll with it. But good Lord, the UI is a case study in "programmers shouldn't be allowed to design UIs".
1 comments
bvrmn 947 days ago
> I would prefer SVN over git

Yes SVN has so much better CLI especially for things like

  * merging

  * history navigation

  * searching commit messages, filenames and file content

  * bisecting
I'm filled with joy remembering good old SVN days and how my life was a way easier.
link
cmrdporcupine 947 days ago
Yeah, SVN was terrible. Its chief advantage was it was just less terrible than CVS and carried roughly the same workflow, so wasn't unfamiliar to people. It was basically CVS with atomic commits and a better interface and transport layer. You could drop SVN into a CVS shop without ruffling many feathers -- and back then I found most people were quite resistant to "novelty" in revision control systems, so SVN fit into that.

I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with a centralized revision control system. I used Piper/CitC at Google for years and it could be ... tolerable. Many people just end up using git this way anyways.

But SVN shipped with garbage merge-on-merge support, and that was the deal-breaker for me.

link