The current state of affairs in version control systems is a mess. To be sure, software development is far better with any of the distributed version control systems in play—the three big ones being Git, Mercurial (
hg), and Bazaar (
bzr), with a few other names like Fossil floating around the periphery—than it ever was in a centralized version control system. There are definitely a few downsides for people converting over from some standard centralized version control systems, notably the increased number of steps in play to accomplish the same tasks.1 But on the whole, the advantages of being able to commit locally, have multiple complete copies of the repository, and share work without touching a centralized server far outweigh any downsides compared to the old centralized system.
That being so, my opening statement remains true, I think: The current state of affairs in version control is a mess. Here is what I mean: of those three major players (Git, Hg, and Bazaar), each has significant downsides relative to the others. Git is famously complex (even arcane), with a user interface design philosphy closely matching the UI sensibilities of Linus Torvalds—which is to say, all the wires are exposed, and it is about as user-hostile as it could be.2 It often outperforms Hg or Bazaar, but it has quirks, to say the very least. Hg and Bazaar both have much better designed user interfaces. They also have saner defaults (especially before the arrival of Git 2.0), and they have better branching models and approaches to history.3 They have substantially better documentation—perhaps especially so with Bazaar, but with either one a user can understand how to use the tool without having to understand the mechanics of the tool. This is simply not the case with Git, and while I enjoy knowing the mechanics of Git because I find them interesting, having to understand the mechanics of a tool to be able to use it is a problem.
But the other systems have their downsides relative, to Git, too. (I will focus on Hg because I have never used Bazaar beyond playing with it, though I have read a good bit of the documentation.) Mutable history in Git is valuable and useful at times; I have rewritten whole sequences of commits when I realized I committed the wrong things but hadn’t yet pushed.4 Being able to commit chunks instead of having to commit whole files at a go is good; I feel the lack of this every time I use Hg.5 (Needing to understand the file system that Git invented to make sure you do not inadvertently destroy your repository is… not so good.) A staging area is nice,6 (even if having to stage everything manually can be in the pain in the neck7).
In short, then, there was no clear winner for this generation. Each of the tools has significant upsides and downsides relative to the others. Git has become the de facto standard, but not because of its own superiority over the alternatives. Rather, it won because of other forces in the community. Mostly I mean GitHub, which is a fantastic piece of software and easily the most significant driving factor in the wider adoption of Git as a tool. The competition (Bitbucket and Launchpad) are nowhere near the same level of sophistication or elegance, and they certainly have not managed to foster the sorts of community that GitHub has. The result has been wide adoption of Git, and a degree of Stockholm Syndrome among developers who have adopted it and concluded that the way Git works is the way a distributed version control system should work.
It is not. Git is complicated to use and in need of tools for managing its complexity; the same is true of Hg and Bazaar, though perhaps to a slightly lesser extent because of their saner branching models. This is what has given rise to the plethora of different formal workflows representing various attempts to manage that complexity (which have been applied to other systems as well). Managing branching, linking that workflow to issues, and supplying associated documentation for projects have also cropped up as closely associated tasks— thus the popularity of GitHub issues and Bitbucket wikis, not to mention Fossil’s integration of both into the DVCS tool itself. None of the tools handle differences between file systems very elegantly (and indeed, it took years for Git even to be useable on Windows). All of them especially struggle to manage symlinks and executable flags.
So there is an enormous opportunity for the next generation of tools. Git, Hg, and so on are huge steps forward for developers from CVS, Visual SourceSafe, or SVN. But they still have major weaknesses, and there are many things that not only can but should be better. In brief, I would love for the next-generation version control system to be:
- distributed (this is now a non-negotiable);
- well-documented—at least as well as Hg is, and preferably as well as Bazaar is;
- well-designed, which is to say having a user interface that is actually a user-interface (like Hg’s) and not an extremely leaky abstraction around the mechanics;8
- file-system oriented, not diff-oriented: this is one of Git’s great strengths and the reason for a lot of its performance advantages;
- extensible, with a good public API so that it is straightforward to add functionality like wikis, documentation, social interaction, and issue tracking in a way that actually integrates the tool;9
- and last but not least, truly cross-platform.
That is a non-trivial task, but the first DVCS that manages to hit even a sizeable majority of these desires will gain a lot of traction in a hurry. The second generation of distributed version control has been good for us. The third could be magical.
A point that was highlighted for me in a conversation a few months ago with my father, a programmer who has been using SVN for a long time and found the transition to Git distinctly less than wonderful.↩
Few things are as hotly debated as the relative merits of the different systems’ branching models and approaches to history. At the least, I can say that Hg and Bazaar’s branching models are more to my taste.↩
Yes, there are extensions that let you do this with Hg, but they are fragile at best in my experience, and substantially less capable than Git’s.↩
Yes, I know about Hg’s record extension. No, it is not quite the same, especially because given the way it is implemented major GUI tools cannot support it without major chicanery.↩
Yes, I know about Hg’s queue extension, too. There is a reason it is not turned on by default, and using it is substantially more arcane than Git’s staging are. Think about that for a minute.↩
Yes, there is the
-aflag. No, I do not want to have to remember it for every commit.↩
Let’s be honest: if Git’s abstraction were a boat, it would sink. It’s just that leaky.↩
GitHub does all of this quite well… but they have had to write heaps and gobs of software around Git to make it work.↩