4 ms·
Beyond branches being expensive, even commits in svn are expensive. They publish immediately, which requires proof-reading, more testing, before each commit. Th
by Peaker 14y ago
Beyond branches being expensive, even commits in svn are expensive. They publish immediately, which requires proof-reading, more testing, before each commit. This means there's an incentive to wait with commits.
Even if you do commit to a branch, where publishing is less of a problem, you still might regret a typo in the commit, which cannot (easily) be retroactively fixed whereas in git you can fix your private/unpublished commits as much as you'd like with virtually no drawbacks.
- rkangel 14y agoGood point - I suppose I hadn't considered it like that. I tend to happily commit to my feature branch on SVN and then make sure that the log message is good when I merge to trunk. Incidentally you can edit previous log messages in SVN, it's just that most servers have it disabled, for traceability.
- Peaker 14y agoIn git you can edit the commit content as well retroactively.