Source control for all dmd source

[hasen]

Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
> hasen wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Wow, tortoisegit? Seems so bloated, look at those screen shots, it's so
>> confusing!
> 
> Wow, git cli?  Seems so bloated, look at all those commands, it's so
> confusing!

It *is* confusing, it doesn't claim to be intuitive, it's aimed for 
developers, they're supposed to read tutorials/man pages to know how it 
works.

Providing a gui that maps a "pull" button to a pull command is confusing 
because GUI's are supposed to be "discoverable" and "intuitive".

No wonder I never knew how to properly use svn, I was so dependant on 
those GUIs, that I never knew what was going on under the surface.

At least for me, the only sensible way to use svn is through the command 
line.

GUIs for svn and git are confusing because well, you're not exactly sure 
what they're doing.



> As for your assertion that tortoisegit is confusing, let's look at those
> screenshots.
> 
> The first is a context-dependant list of git commands.  If you think
> that's confusing, then I can't imagine you're able to use the git cli at
> all, so let's assume you don't mean that one.

Yes, I think it's confusing. Read above.

I do use the git cli, it's easier because it makes more sense.

> 
> Next we have a shot of it detecting a patch set and giving you context
> commands for those.  I fail to see how that could be confusing.

I haven't used patches with git, so I don't know what's in that corner 
of git.

> 
> The commit dialog?  Well, that's basically git commit -a, except you can
> actually modify what files are being committed in the dialog itself and
> it has a built-in editor.

Yea? What are these options? [Sign] [OK] what's the difference between them?

> 
> Actually, if you look at them, the dialogs are all just GUI versions of
> the various git tools themselves.  So if you really find those
> confusing, I can only assume you find Git itself confusing.

Look at this and tell me it's not confusing:
http://www.jensroesner.de/wgetgui/wgetgui.png


>> IMO it's wrong to just put the same command-line commands on the
>> right-click menu, and call that a gui.
> 
> Yes, because heaven forbid anyone makes our lives as developers easier.
>  After all, no developer should EVER use a simplified interface when
> what they SHOULD be doing is memorising every command and all of its
> switches.
> 
> The heresy!

Well, if it makes your life easier, good for you.

> 
>> The humble git-gui is much better.
> 
> Integrating those commands into the shell itself so that only the
> commands that make sense in context are shown, and actually tell the
> user what they're going to do is much better.
> 
> Incidentally, I use both.  TortoiseGit is great for anything of relative
> complexity as it actually helps you do it correctly (it took me a while
> to work out how to properly apply patch sets without it).
> 
> What's more, it also helps you learn how to use git without constantly
> screwing up.

I think if you don't know what you're doing you'll screw up anyway. I 
used to use SmartSVN, TortoiseSVN, and probably some other GUIs, and 
every so often I would screw something up and have no idea how to fix it.

Why? because the GUI made me feel comfortable using svn without really 
knowing what the hell was going on. Many items under menus were 
confusing as hell. Many options for various tasks were also confusing as 
hell.