4 ms·
You can't commit to a server, obviously, but you can commit to a local directory. You would have needed set one up in advance however. Checkouts are sparse, in
by xorcist 3y ago
You can't commit to a server, obviously, but you can commit to a local directory. You would have needed set one up in advance however. Checkouts are sparse, in git terminology.
Commit here approximates to a push in git terminology. The intended use is a little bit different. Normally you wouldn't have committed until you were really done with the work (and all reviews etc) since there is really no concept of a rebase. So a commit is really something you "commit" to. You work on the patch instead.
Some of the difference is from the tools, but some of this is also due to the difference between a patch based vcs and content addressable one.
- neuromanser 3y agoHow did you "commit locally" with Subversion twenty years ago? And if "local commits" were a thing, what was Svk for?
- xorcist 3y agosvk is a tool to do exactly this. You can always copy the actual repo, you have read access to it after all. Something like svk vastly simplifies this workflow and can keep your local copy up to date. Keep in mind that the intended workflow with svn is to perfect a patch locally and commit when you are done. So something like svk is considered a special case, not an integral part of the workflow. git actively encourages you do split your work in separate commits using rebase. So there is a big difference in intended use, perhaps not as much in technical ability. Linus would likely have gone mad had he forced his workflow on svn.