As such, the git project has consciously made no effort to make the migration to git easy: the revert command in Subversion resets your current working copy to the last commit, but in git undoes a supplied patch and commits the changes needed to remove that patch. (The equivalent command for svn revert in git is git reset --hard HEAD^.)
Yes. You can't just make shit up and expect the computer to understand what you mean. Last time I checked, git came with extensive documentation. Try reading it :P
Anyway, I think hg takes the right approach to design -- a library that some shell scripts call into. Git takes a non-ideal approach -- monolithic scripts all written in different languages that sometimes share nothing. (Or more often, call each other to "abstract away" some details.)
But despite this, git is much nicer to use. It's more flexible, more consistent, and has a lot of really nice sugar. But I guess if you think svn is the only way revision control can work, you won't like it. Your loss. <link to "Beating the Averages">.
Yes. You can't just make shit up and expect the computer to understand what you mean. Last time I checked, git came with extensive documentation. Try reading it :P
Anyway, I think hg takes the right approach to design -- a library that some shell scripts call into. Git takes a non-ideal approach -- monolithic scripts all written in different languages that sometimes share nothing. (Or more often, call each other to "abstract away" some details.)
But despite this, git is much nicer to use. It's more flexible, more consistent, and has a lot of really nice sugar. But I guess if you think svn is the only way revision control can work, you won't like it. Your loss. <link to "Beating the Averages">.