>But after looking at other source control options, I find it to be an absolute joy to use
Git is objectively pretty janky, though, so it seems to me this statement is an indictment of Subversion and CVS rather than some statement about the virtues of git.
I think it's much like the case with Wireguard. It's not that wireguard is some super amazing thing to deserve such adulation; it just sucks (a lot) less than what came before it.
Nope, I'm not even talking about subversion or CVS (although, I certainly prefer git to those, and it's a fun discussion).
I am talking about patched-together workflows developed at regulatory agencies, law offices and the like; collaborative editing of... non-code "information".
People who are doing "version control" but don't know that they are doing version control. They are editing documents in parallel. They are changing documents and recording the changes with a paper trail and diffs. They are working on separate parts of the same document in parallel, and managing the conflicts that appear in those documents when they are rev'd. They are sending their changes to someone else to have them reviewed before they are rev'd. Version control.
Their workflows and their tools are positively prehistoric compared to what is being discussed here.
I'm an aerospace engineer so I know all about Windows shops that operate on the "RequirementsSpec-final (3) Nate's comments.docx" school of version control.
Half the industry runs on excel spreadsheets. I feel your pain.
Git is objectively pretty janky, though, so it seems to me this statement is an indictment of Subversion and CVS rather than some statement about the virtues of git.
I think it's much like the case with Wireguard. It's not that wireguard is some super amazing thing to deserve such adulation; it just sucks (a lot) less than what came before it.