moving to git (was: moving to subversion)
vapula at gmail.com
Mon Sep 4 13:28:32 CEST 2006
On 9/4/06, Stefan Sperling <stsp at stsp.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:05:24PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 06:54:34PM +0200, Vapula wrote:
> > > PS : how about moving to SVN, it should be lighter on the server,
> > > it ?
> The following has to be said about migrating to git:
> On the plus side: It will rock!
> Git suits our development model very well. Branching is encouraged,
> and much more easy to use and natural than with cvs. We can move things
> around seemlessly without spoiling the history. Git seems to allow almost
> anything in the repository, even symlinks! And there is no binary/text
> data problem.
> On the downside:
> Committers will have to learn how to use git properly.
> This takes a bit of time. The documentation is very good,
> but uses very informal style with a couple of jokes thrown
> in here and there. While this keeps things from getting
> too boring, you have to get used to the style of the
> documentation a bit before you know what is going on.
SVN doesn't have that downside, my company recently switched to SVN from CVS
over 2 days for more than 100 projects (and even more developers).
Migration looked seamless, as you can keep the history of revisions from
The main features are :
- command-line client use mostly the same syntax for checkin/checkout as
CVS, so there is virtually no learning curve
- anonymous access is easy, through a simple web-like access and no auth
needed. Checking out is way faster than CVS.
- documentation is pretty good (http://svnbook.red-bean.com/) and there are
GUIs for it if you want (TortoiseSVN, ...)
In the end, I guess it's just a matter of choosing one VC system and
sticking to it.
I personnally prefer SVN, but then it's my only opinion and I'm not driving
this project :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dslinux-devel