Re: Prefer Mercurial instead of git

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es>
> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 17:52:43 +0100
> 
> The fact that some feature or command-line switch exists on git doesn't
> mean that you "need to know it because it is useful". Supposing that
> they are useful for *your use case*, it might not be time-effective to
> learn and memorize that feature. I'm happily and efficaciously using git
> from several years now and there are entire areas which are completely
> unknown for me.
> 
> So mentioning the complexity of git when, in practice, you just need a
> few minutes tutorial to use it with Magit and less than an hour for
> adquiring a sound knowledge of its architecture (which allows a more
> effective learning and usage), is a red herring, indeed.

If we are supposed to restrict ourselves to what VC or Magit offer,
then why do we need to switch to git?  One of the main reasons, we are
told, is that git is so powerful, and can be used to do jobs that bzr
users can only dream about.  Why do you want me to artificially
restrain myself from learning those powerful features and using them
to my benefit?

IOW, a change in a major development tool is not an easy decision
precisely _because_ it requires one to learn the new tool, and learn
it thoroughly.  Otherwise, the switch is a waste of energy.  Saying
that the complexity is a red herring because one should simply
disregard the complex and the powerful features makes very little
sense to me.  Would you suggest that someone uses Emacs as a fancy
Notepad, just because the rest is not really needed?  I doubt that.

Now, I didn't mean, of course, that one must familiarize oneself with
all the commands and options.  But the key concepts, the "soul" of the
tool, its basic principles of operation and its philosophy -- without
learning that, you will never be able to use that one command that
solves a particular problem, when you need that.