The reason I think git is complicated isn't because it's complicated conceptually. It's because the commands are intentionally different from other SCMs, which is highly annoying when you know what you want to do but can't figure it out.<p>For example, how do you revert a file in your working directory?<p>Oh, git checkout HEAD file -- obviously!
These always (fail to)address the same old issues. I switched to SVN for some specific features. I've looked and not been able to get definite answers if git supports these. In fact I've mostly gotten "if you don't do it/use it our way you're stupid, go away".<p>proper directory move/rename history<p>proper binary handling(that is no merging, newest file wins)<p>proper line ending handling (that is default to convert to local system's standard but overrideable per file/file pattern)<p>proper permission handling (track permissions and set them on check out/update/whatever you call it)<p>git seems focused solely on source code and heavily towards the Linux Kernel development process.<p>I use svn for website deployments, tracking changes to servers' filesystems(parts thereof), and occasional source code. I don't use anything close to the Linux Kernel dev process.
For someone who doesn't have much experience with SCMs, is it worth learning Git or should I learn SVN? I get the general idea behind both - just not sure what I should dive into.
The only thing I worry about with git is getting really raw developers who have never, <i>ever</i> used version control up and running in a semblance of a reasonable manner of operation.<p>I mean, I know people who were resistant to using subversion because they didn't understand how it was supposed to work. I sort of shudder to think about the mental reaction to being dropped into git. Because of this I originally supported Darcs. I still would if they could clean up some of the patch resolution problems that they have and the Darcs GitHub-like got halfway decent (maybe with Camp).<p>Source Control is one of the fundamental tenets of development and getting newbs trained on it is so incredibly important. We, collectively, can't afford for it to be a tough thing to get a handle on. Even if it takes time to really understand, it needs to be easy to get going and using the tool in a good semblance of the proper manner.
Just to reference another HN discussion "My web is text based" (here <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=488030" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=488030</a> ) - this is the sort of topic where I think video and screencasts would be helpful.<p>Not a screencast of someone typing DVCS commands into a shell, mind you, or a video of someone talking about DVCS that could be transcribed to text with no loss of explanatory power whatsoever, or, $deity forbid, a video of someone reading inaudibly from illegible slides.<p>A decent <i>animated</i> introduction to distributed version control explained by characters worthy of Pixar, set in a world of fantasy physics where things can pop into and out of existance.<p>DVCSs do things which are non linear, text and talk are extremely linear. Text and audio shouldn't be the only two forms of media on the web, video explanation shouldn't mean linear explanation.