> It should be obvious that the difference between the user friendliness of a program that shows you a real time window of the text you are editing with immediate feedback and a command line interface based editor designed for slow teletypes is much greater than the difference between two slightly different sets of commands that will be the majority of one's VCS use will be.
I think that anyone who is familiar with CVS & Git and with ed & vi/emacs will agree that there is a similar leap forward in capability. The move from CVS to SVN is a bit like the move from vi to emacs, but the move from CVS to Git really is like the move from ed to vi, vim or emacs.
I suspect that this is probably another example of the Blub effect, this time applied to VCS: the CVS user looking up at Git thinks, ‘Why would I ever need that? Besides, if I ever did I’m sure that I could roll something that was good enough,’ while the Git user looking down on CVS thinks ‘There but for the grace of God go I.’
You’re still missing what’s been stated elsewhere in the thread: that OpenBSD’s review process is VCS‐agnostic, that the project officially mirrors to GitHub, and that many developers and external contributors use the Git mirror for their work (just look on the tech@ list for how many mails have “diff --git” in the patch).
Myself, I’m crazy about local branches and rebase -i. But it’s no skin off my back if the final command I run winds up being “cvs ci”.
I think you'd be wrong here as personally i have used Git a lot more than CVS as i suspect would any developer nowadays who has at least a couple of years under their belt. And i think it is the exact opposite of what you are talking about that is happening: people already know Git and want to use it for everything - you see, after all, that the common response isn't something like "why would i use CVS again?", it is something like "why would i/some new developer learn CVS?", implying familiarity with Git and dislike towards learning a different tool.
I think that anyone who is familiar with CVS & Git and with ed & vi/emacs will agree that there is a similar leap forward in capability. The move from CVS to SVN is a bit like the move from vi to emacs, but the move from CVS to Git really is like the move from ed to vi, vim or emacs.
I suspect that this is probably another example of the Blub effect, this time applied to VCS: the CVS user looking up at Git thinks, ‘Why would I ever need that? Besides, if I ever did I’m sure that I could roll something that was good enough,’ while the Git user looking down on CVS thinks ‘There but for the grace of God go I.’