I'm perfectly happy with Git. In the most basic uses, it's extremely easy, get git cola and you're done. The advanced uses are harder than they need to be, but not by that much. There's always google.
I wish it had native zip and sqlite support, I'd love to see issues and PRs more integrated, but that's about it.
It would be nice to have an unversioned sync directory in a repo, that could be updated without a commit and had no history, for implementing fast-changing stuff where history isn't critical, like stashing log files right on an internal config repo. But that's not exactly necessary.
I'm sure better things could be done. But would they be usable over ssh, no certs needed, as well as HTTP? Or would you need a domain name? Would they have decent GUIs? Would they still be decentralized? Would they have an equivalent to LFS? What features would they drop?
Would half the features be plugins so that every repo relied on a unique set of optional features?
I'm... not sure I'd like the kind of VCS that the current FOSS culture would like to make....
If people really tried to replace Git, could see multiple VCSes getting big at once. Git is pretty unique in how it is so popular, you probably don't need to know any others.
We can do better than git, but it's pretty unique. It's already a base primitive for so many things like package managers and notetaking. It's so deeply engrained in dev culture, it's almost like UTF-8, and I would hope whatever replaces it has that same property.
I think the easy solution would just be if the git devs themselves made a new first party front-end and added a few features.
There are lots of git frontends, that everyone ignores because you might as well just learn git, it's everywhere, but if some new git2 command was included and just as common, we could have a very smooth transition.
I wish it had native zip and sqlite support, I'd love to see issues and PRs more integrated, but that's about it.
It would be nice to have an unversioned sync directory in a repo, that could be updated without a commit and had no history, for implementing fast-changing stuff where history isn't critical, like stashing log files right on an internal config repo. But that's not exactly necessary.
I'm sure better things could be done. But would they be usable over ssh, no certs needed, as well as HTTP? Or would you need a domain name? Would they have decent GUIs? Would they still be decentralized? Would they have an equivalent to LFS? What features would they drop?
Would half the features be plugins so that every repo relied on a unique set of optional features?
I'm... not sure I'd like the kind of VCS that the current FOSS culture would like to make....
If people really tried to replace Git, could see multiple VCSes getting big at once. Git is pretty unique in how it is so popular, you probably don't need to know any others.
We can do better than git, but it's pretty unique. It's already a base primitive for so many things like package managers and notetaking. It's so deeply engrained in dev culture, it's almost like UTF-8, and I would hope whatever replaces it has that same property.
I think the easy solution would just be if the git devs themselves made a new first party front-end and added a few features.
There are lots of git frontends, that everyone ignores because you might as well just learn git, it's everywhere, but if some new git2 command was included and just as common, we could have a very smooth transition.