4 ms·

> I'm not really sure why the author is a git skeptic if it enables and introduced him or her to a wonderful workflow. Perhaps because you can do the same thin

by javert 14y ago

> I'm not really sure why the author is a git skeptic if it enables and introduced him or her to a wonderful workflow. Perhaps because you can do the same thing in SVN? At least, that's what he says. I don't really know SVN.

ambrice 14y ago
You could do topic branches in SVN, it would just be painful. It's sort of like saying "Why use C++? You can do object oriented programming in C with structs and function pointers."
- csense 14y ago
  Actually, I like to avoid the bloat of C++ and just use "object-oriented" C with structs and function pointers wherever possible. This is largely due to the fact that I have a strong aesthetic preference for languages where you can hold most of the language [1] in your head. Such languages are called compact [2]. [1] Compactness of language and standard library are different. Having a non-compact standard library isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if it means I don't have to complicate my life with third-party libraries. [2] http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch04s02.html http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch04s02.html
mpyne 14y ago
svn switch is much inferior compared to git checkout... it is slow and requires a server roundtrip unless you just use svn switch --relocate (which doesn't do the same thing, it happens to be a separate feature with the same interface).
pseut 14y ago
> Perhaps because you can do the same thing in SVN? And, until (apparently) recently, if you make a mistake SVN will "trash your local copy rather badly" which isn't quite the same thing.
- javert 14y ago
  Who cares about the past? It's not like I'm going to go download an old version of SVN. That's why I disregarded that part.
  - pseut 14y ago
    Ok. I'm pretty sure (and as mentioned in other comments), you also need to have a connection to the machine with the repo to do this with SVN. My work desktop is Red Hat, so I'm (unfortunately) used to downloading old versions of software...

by javert 14y ago

ambrice 14y ago

You could do topic branches in SVN, it would just be painful. It's sort of like saying "Why use C++? You can do object oriented programming in C with structs and function pointers."

csense 14y ago
Actually, I like to avoid the bloat of C++ and just use "object-oriented" C with structs and function pointers wherever possible. This is largely due to the fact that I have a strong aesthetic preference for languages where you can hold most of the language [1] in your head. Such languages are called compact [2]. [1] Compactness of language and standard library are different. Having a non-compact standard library isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if it means I don't have to complicate my life with third-party libraries. [2] http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch04s02.html http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch04s02.html

mpyne 14y ago

svn switch is much inferior compared to git checkout... it is slow and requires a server roundtrip unless you just use svn switch --relocate (which doesn't do the same thing, it happens to be a separate feature with the same interface).

pseut 14y ago

> Perhaps because you can do the same thing in SVN? And, until (apparently) recently, if you make a mistake SVN will "trash your local copy rather badly" which isn't quite the same thing.

javert 14y ago
Who cares about the past? It's not like I'm going to go download an old version of SVN. That's why I disregarded that part.
- pseut 14y ago
  Ok. I'm pretty sure (and as mentioned in other comments), you also need to have a connection to the machine with the repo to do this with SVN. My work desktop is Red Hat, so I'm (unfortunately) used to downloading old versions of software...