4 ms·
It's something you can do in svn already. Granted, it's not as streamlined as it is in git, and you would need to commit to the remote server, but that's not th
by aidos 13y ago
It's something you can do in svn already. Granted, it's not as streamlined as it is in git, and you would need to commit to the remote server, but that's not the end of the world.
In the old days, before git existed, we used to have a space in the repo for each developer. You could put whatever you wanted in there. So if you wanted to go off on a tangent you just copied the code via svn, switched to that copy, do your work, commit as you please. When you were happy you could cherrypick / merge into the main branches of the code.
Git makes this stuff easier, but it was all possible with svn. Hell, it was probably even possible with cvs if you jumped through the right hoops.
- Xylakant 13y agowe used to call that space "developer branch" or a "feature branch" :)
- parennoob 13y agoFirstly -- it's on the server, as you said, which slows things down. Also, is there an easy way to rollback, if you don't have certain privileges on the server?
- aidos 13y agoTrue, but it's a trade off. I've run big svn repos before where we couldn't have used git because it would have taken up too much space on the client machines. In terms of editing the history it's generally just considered something that you don't need to do. My point was not so much that git isn't better. It was more that the desire for the new tech makes people forget what the old tech could do. It happened when svn took over from cvs. It'll happen when the next tech comes along to replace it. That's life.