 |
| Previous · Next | |
| User | Message |
|
JT
|
Date: 5/9/2008 1:44 pm · Subject: Subversion vs Git · Rating: 0
Internally Graham and I have been discussing the pros and cons of git vs subversion. And today Slashdot had an interesting article on the subject. I'm wondering, what do WebGUI devs have to say about it. Should we switch to git? Are we perfectly happy with subversion? I for one am undecided. And typically when I'm undecided I tend to favor what I'm already using rather than something new. The reason I'm undecided is that so far git looks way cooler than subversion, but I'm not sure we'd use any of the features that make it way cooler. |
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
|
cap10morgan
|
Date: 5/9/2008 1:52 pm · Subject: Re: Subversion vs Git · Rating: 1
I would love it if my working copies were actually local repositories that I could commit revisions to, etc. Something git does and svn doesn't, as you no doubt know already. However, I always go back and forth too because git just seems wonkier than svn. Maybe that's just because I know svn and don't know git that well. But when I read git documentation, it's like I'm reading advanced physics texts that are over my head. Whereas when I read the svn book, I'm always thinking, "Oh, OK. I see." |
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
|
apeiron
|
Date: 5/10/2008 1:25 am · Subject: Re: Subversion vs Git (see also: svk) · Rating: 4
On May 9, 2008, at 13:44 :47, <jt@plainblack.com> <jt@plainblack.com> wrote: JT wrote: Speaking strictly for myself, I'm satisfied with svn. It does everything I need it to do--although admittedly that's not too incredibly much at the moment. That said, I would like to mention svk for those commenting on git's ability to do distributed repos / local checkins. It's fully compatible with the svn repo we have right now, and the command set resembles svn. Plus, it's Perl, so anyone contributing code to WebGUI arguably has the skills needed to hack on it. I don't know about the rest of you, but I like using tools I can hack personally if I need to. Yes, svk's dependency list is respectable, but let's be realistic. How many of us are using systems today where we'd have to manually manage those dependencies? For PB staffers (and anyone else on a Mac), svk has the added benefit of being part of the default Mac OS X Leopard install. I was rather surprised when I accidentally discovered I had svk installed in /usr/bin alongside vim et al. Chris Nehren // Plain Blackp 1.703.286.2525 x 811m 1.267.573.1000f 1.312.264.5382 |
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
|
fdillon
|
Date: 5/10/2008 12:45 pm · Subject: Re: Subversion vs Git · Rating: 2
From what I'm reading it sounds to me like we should make the move to svk given the ability to create local repositories. I would love that. |
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
|
JT
|
Date: 5/10/2008 2:20 pm · Subject: Re: Subversion vs Git · Rating: 2
There is really no "we" as far as svk goes. Its up to each dev if they wish to use it. And svk is a nice compromise of keeping the main repo on svn and still having DVCS. JT On May 10, 2008, at 12:45 PM, <frank@plainblack.com> wrote: fdillon wrote:
|
| Back to Top |
Rate [ | ]
|
