3 ms·

I wonder how many people use git primarily for "git clone <github url>" and that's about it? I have to admit we still use svn at work (although I've started us

by sbarre 15y ago

I wonder how many people use git primarily for "git clone <github url>" and that's about it? I have to admit we still use svn at work (although I've started using git at home on personal stuff) but at the moment the most frequent task I use git for is still simply cloning stuff from github.

bad_user 15y ago
At work, before we switched to Git, I used the git-svn bridge. It feels kind of hackish, svn-externals don't work and working with remote branches is doable but you have to be careful when merging ... that being said, I did extensive work with local/remote branches with git-svn and I never saw anybody actually branching / merging in SVN. I would never go back to SVN. And this is not a zealot-thing in which I'm stating an opinion to protect an investment -- Git is so much better that it isn't even funny.
- sbarre 15y ago
  I agree I prefer git (and also agree that 99% of svn usage in our environment doesn't involve any merging), I think it's just that svn is filling our need for a remote backup/storage for the source code so we're sticking with that for now. That said we are a very small team and all in the same office so it hasn't been an issue. I suspect we will slowly start moving new projects over to git though.
- nupark2 15y ago
  Git is so much better that it isn't even funny. To this day, I've yet to hear an argument for git's superiority that wasn't predicated on: - The assumption that hiding your work in a local branch is somehow a general feature instead of being detrimental to communication and optimized for Linux's development model, or - Based on a 2003-era understanding of SVN and its support for merge tracking, branch switching, etc. I keep hearing a lot of enthusiasm but not much to back it up. Do you have a different take than the above?
div 15y ago
We use svn at work too, but pretty much all developers have switched to git-svn. People used to working with tortoise or versions for mac still use vanilla svn, which is a big reason of why it's kept around.

by sbarre 15y ago

bad_user 15y ago

At work, before we switched to Git, I used the git-svn bridge. It feels kind of hackish, svn-externals don't work and working with remote branches is doable but you have to be careful when merging ... that being said, I did extensive work with local/remote branches with git-svn and I never saw anybody actually branching / merging in SVN. I would never go back to SVN. And this is not a zealot-thing in which I'm stating an opinion to protect an investment -- Git is so much better that it isn't even funny.

sbarre 15y ago
I agree I prefer git (and also agree that 99% of svn usage in our environment doesn't involve any merging), I think it's just that svn is filling our need for a remote backup/storage for the source code so we're sticking with that for now. That said we are a very small team and all in the same office so it hasn't been an issue. I suspect we will slowly start moving new projects over to git though.
nupark2 15y ago
Git is so much better that it isn't even funny. To this day, I've yet to hear an argument for git's superiority that wasn't predicated on: - The assumption that hiding your work in a local branch is somehow a general feature instead of being detrimental to communication and optimized for Linux's development model, or - Based on a 2003-era understanding of SVN and its support for merge tracking, branch switching, etc. I keep hearing a lot of enthusiasm but not much to back it up. Do you have a different take than the above?

div 15y ago

We use svn at work too, but pretty much all developers have switched to git-svn. People used to working with tortoise or versions for mac still use vanilla svn, which is a big reason of why it's kept around.