3 ms·

With git, you can basically do the same thing and a lot more. You could probably even alias your favorit SVN commands for easier learning. One of the main probl

by voidr 14y ago

With git, you can basically do the same thing and a lot more. You could probably even alias your favorit SVN commands for easier learning. One of the main problems with SVN is that it works with files and not commits, you work on 3 files, commit your work, and SVN will let me only update 1 or 2 files, I think this is horrible and people do it... a lot. You are not forced to have local branches and commits that you didn't push to the main repository, but having them as options is a step forward. Also I can't imagine SVN working as good as git in the open source realm.

flatline3 14y ago
I'm aware that you can do the same things, just with a lot more user complexity. I prefer simpler tools if the complexity does not strike me as advantageous towards completing my primary task -- writing software. As for OSS, I'm much happier with the results of the PostgreSQL or FreeBSD development communication models than I am with the results of git/Linux style of development coordination. I think it's fair to judge by results.
- voidr 14y ago
  I don't feel any complexity, only more control. I admit though, that I started with git, which probably helped a lot. If I want to I can alias git commit && git push, so that I don't have to type two commands to achieve something that can be done with one in SVN, I really don't see that as a big deal. The thing that bugs me about a lot of SVN users is that they are afraid for branching. A lot of them thing that updating specific files instead of the whole tree is a good thing. Sure there are some projects where SVN is good enough, but sometimes you just feel the need for the features of git. I think Linux is doing a lot better than FreeBSD. :)
  - flatline3 14y ago
    > I don't feel any complexity, only more control. I admit though, that I started with git, which probably helped a lot. Control, complexity. Same thing. I don't need control, I need the SCM to make my commits available to everyone immediately and get out of my way. Any time I spend twiddling the SCM system for asthetic reasons, or because I don't want to share my work until I'm ready for other people to see it, is wasted time that serves no code or communication advantage. We're software developers, not SCM operators. Git appeals to certain aspects of human nature that make the tool appealing, but are fundamentally negatively impacting on communication and the development process. > I think Linux is doing a lot better than FreeBSD. :) Not in terms of code quality, it's not. MySQL is also more popular than PostgreSQL, but there's no technical comparison.

by voidr 14y ago

flatline3 14y ago

I'm aware that you can do the same things, just with a lot more user complexity. I prefer simpler tools if the complexity does not strike me as advantageous towards completing my primary task -- writing software. As for OSS, I'm much happier with the results of the PostgreSQL or FreeBSD development communication models than I am with the results of git/Linux style of development coordination. I think it's fair to judge by results.

voidr 14y ago
I don't feel any complexity, only more control. I admit though, that I started with git, which probably helped a lot. If I want to I can alias git commit && git push, so that I don't have to type two commands to achieve something that can be done with one in SVN, I really don't see that as a big deal. The thing that bugs me about a lot of SVN users is that they are afraid for branching. A lot of them thing that updating specific files instead of the whole tree is a good thing. Sure there are some projects where SVN is good enough, but sometimes you just feel the need for the features of git. I think Linux is doing a lot better than FreeBSD. :)
- flatline3 14y ago
  > I don't feel any complexity, only more control. I admit though, that I started with git, which probably helped a lot. Control, complexity. Same thing. I don't need control, I need the SCM to make my commits available to everyone immediately and get out of my way. Any time I spend twiddling the SCM system for asthetic reasons, or because I don't want to share my work until I'm ready for other people to see it, is wasted time that serves no code or communication advantage. We're software developers, not SCM operators. Git appeals to certain aspects of human nature that make the tool appealing, but are fundamentally negatively impacting on communication and the development process. > I think Linux is doing a lot better than FreeBSD. :) Not in terms of code quality, it's not. MySQL is also more popular than PostgreSQL, but there's no technical comparison.