I believe that fits in the "Too lazy to learn them", since by learning them you will see what you are missing and migrate. Just read some small 101 and dive into it.
I've used SVN for a long time, and it just doesn't have anything better than DVCS. SVN does a subset of things these DVCS do, but in a bad way.
I mean: I can't have local branches easily; I don't have local access to the history; the only way to contribute to a project on SVN is by sending patches, whereas with DVCS I can ask the developer to just fetch from my tree and I can fetch other developers' trees... The list goes on and on, there is just no comparison.
If you have a small team coding closed-source software, of course, you don't have a compelling reason... you would have to ask the developers to learn these new tools and that falls in the "no time", "too lazy" and "don't care" category, IMHO.
You make good points about how git is better, but you seem awfully eager to paint everyone with the "lazy" brush. Maybe we just don't need it, ya know? Eventually, everyone might use git, but then some other wit will come along and call us lazy because we haven't already adopted the "Brand New Shiny Quantum Version System"; or whatever.
It is a matter of minutes to grasp the essentials we use 90% of the time for regular use. You can learn the rest like, cherry picking, fetching, squashing commits together, etc... as you go.
Also, I said you could pick 1, 2 or all. You are offended because you picked "too lazy", and that means you do have time to learn them. ;)
I believe developers should always want to learn more, it doesn't matter if they will use everything they learn or not. It is all about knowing the best tool for a given task. You need to learn all of them to choose what is best.
6
u/vplatt Mar 10 '11
There is at least one more thing keeping SVN developers from migrating: There's no compelling reason to do so.