But at the risk of having my programmer’s license revoked, I have to confess I don’t really care about version control systems. I mean, I think it’s important to use version control, but I don’t get all excited about the latest ideas in version control technology or the newest VCS on the block. It’s just a tool. It keeps versions of all my code, and allows me to revert to previous versions, see when and how things changed, and collaborate with other programmers working in the same codebase. Beyond that I don’t much care.
The tools don’t make the programmer.
What’s new with DVCS is the proponents seem to think they need to evangelize their system. Unfortunately they rather suck at it, and their arguments usually leave me feeling that I don’t want to use software used by such jerks, on account that it might make me into a jerk. Or at least a bigger one.
However, I do think that a DVCS can be a really useful tool so I’ve come up with some suggestions for those wanting to effectively evangelize their favorite version control system, or at least annoy me less when they talk.
Don’t be condescending or insulting
I think it’s part of human nature — or at least programmer nature — to assume you’re the smartest guy in the room, and think that anyone who disagrees with you is a real buffon. Programmers seem to take great pleasure in showing that the other person is an idiot, or didn’t know something they did, or is at least not as clever as they are. A lot of arguments for git or Mercurial seem to revolve around explaining how git or Mercurial are so clearly superior that only morons would use something else.
While this works great for rallying the troops, it’s counterproductive when trying to win someone over to your side.
Think of it this way: suppose someone comes to your door to tell you about their religion. During the discussion they are self righteous and condescending; they don’t listen to your arguments, but are only interested in proving that they’re right. Are you likely to be swayed to believe in their religion? If you’re like the other hairless bipedal mammals inhabiting this planet you won’t be, even if they had some valid points.
As soon as you become insulting or condescending, your arguments will be rejected out of hand. I know this will upset some programmers because they believe if you show your argument is superior, everyone will accept it. But that’s not the way people work.
Try to be helpful
The best way to introduce someone to your DVCS is by trying to help them. Not in the “I have all the answers” way, but in the “I’ve dealt with that before, and here’s what I did” kind of way. People will run into the kinds of problems that DVCS are good at solving. When they do, you can helpfully suggest a solution.
However, some care should be taken so the suggestion doesn’t come off the wrong way.
Wrong Right Dude, why are you using subversion? I’ve run into that problem before. I solved it by using feature X of git/hg in this way. Dude, just use git/hg. You smell nice.
Be aware that people may not know where their pain points are. I’ve seen customers jump through some excruciating hoops to get a piece of software to do something when there was an easier way. People get used to pain and begin to assume it’s normal. If you notice something like that, even if they’re not complaining about it, you can politely suggest a better way.
Instead of a list of features that a DVCS provides or abstract arguments as to why they should be using it, people respond better to concrete examples of how a piece of software can make their lives better. People are also more responsive when they know you’re on their side, trying to help them, even if they don’t — or currently can’t — take your suggestion. Keep in mind switching VCS in the middle of product cycle is likely something most people can’t do.
The right attitude is that of trying to help a friend, not conquer an enemy.
Be willing to answer questions, even dumb ones
Distributed version control works differently from centralized version control, and it does require a different way of thinking. I know I was confused by it when I first started looking into it. A lot of tutorials jump into the mechanics of how to perform certain tasks, but rarely talk about the philosophy of the system or why things are the way they are. If you want to successfully persuade people that your DVCS is the best then you need to be willing to do a lot of patient education.
I say “patient” because after using centralized version control they might have difficulty switching over to a new mental model. Or they might have heard a lot of FUD about your DVCS that you need to put to rest. It’s important to do this patiently, respectfully, and not insultingly because they’ve picked up misinformation or don’t immediately “get it” like you do. Otherwise they might ignore your DVCS so they don’t have to deal with people who look down on them because they don’t “get it.”
Make it trivial to install and use
This seems like a no brainer, but it is an important part of any software. If it’s hard to try out and use your DVCS, it simply won’t get used. I think that for the most part both git and Mercurial succeed in this respect. My only complaint is neither has a good Mac GUI client. Contrast that with Subversion which has both Versions and Cornerstone on the Mac. You shouldn’t underestimate the draw of an easy to use, beautiful GUI.
I think Joel Spolsky has given the best example of how to properly promote and evangelize a DVCS. He wrote a blog post — Distributed Version Control is here to stay, baby — about how he came to learn and use DVCS. It’s well written, and instead of condescending, he’s actually humble and admits he was wrong about DVCS to begin with. Joel also created a site called HgInit that does an amazing job of explaining the philosophy behind Mercurial and gives a solid introduction to right way to use it. It’s actually the site that convinced me to start using Mercurial for real.