4 ms·
Most of these have nothing to do with git, but are true of any distributed repository. At that point, your argument becomes: distributed repositories are bad fo
by teilo 9y ago
Most of these have nothing to do with git, but are true of any distributed repository. At that point, your argument becomes: distributed repositories are bad for business.
Then there's this:
> Graphic designers, writers, HTML/CSS frontenders, managers, data analysts and QA staff can’t use Git, even though they all used Subversion.
What rubbish. The features of subversion are a subset of git, and the git equivalents are easy to learn. For a svn user, there's literally only a single additional command they need to know: git push.
- ryanbrunner 9y agoTo be fair, git is the first VCS I've ever used where there was any real learning curve at all for normal, everyday use. I don't recall anyone ever really teaching me subversion, outside of maybe 5 minutes walking through the GUI. With git I feel like it probably took a few months of regular use before I felt comfortable with it. That doesn't mean that I'd go back to subversion, but I don't think it's fair to say it's as easy to use.
- DougBTX 9y agoI remember trying to do merges in SVN years ago, it was so hard my team agreed to just never make new branches. Git it so much easier to use, it seems hard to compare.
- ryanbrunner 9y agoFor branching / administration you're probably right. Typically though, subversion workflows would involve administrators doing most of the heavy lifting of branching / merging and everyone else working against those - for those users Subversion was absolutely easier.
- icebraining 9y agoThe features of subversion are a subset of git Well, except for locking, which I hear is useful for people working with hard-to-merge files.
- lkrubner 9y agodistributed repositories are bad for business. If you read the whole essay, you will see that "distributed repositories are bad for business" is exactly the argument being made.