Re: Git vs SVN
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Eddy Petrișor <email@example.com> wrote:
> 2008/11/6 Barry deFreese <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> Vincent Fourmond wrote:
>>> In any case, no one would think to drop support for SVN (too many
>>> packages to convert for a more-than-dubious benefit for most of the
> Vincent, could you expand on that "more-than-dubious" qualification of
> the conversion to git?
> I don't want to be *at*all* combative, I just want to understand which
> benefit(s) you consider more-than-dubious for git?
I know I should have explained more. What I mean is that, starting
from a team which is mainly using SVN and svn-buildpackage, converting
to git will not bring further functionality unless you convert the
team members too, but it is clear that it has a certain cost,
especially in terms of time everyone would spend to get comfortable
with using git-buildpackage.
I don't say there is not benefits in switching to git, I just say
that the benefits will only outbalance the cost of migrating for the
team members fluent in git, which is at least not my case (and
apparently not the case of many others).
That does not prevent you from starting new packages using git or
switch a package from SVN to git if the other contributors don't
object. But it makes it pointless to invest time and energy into a
switch that will not benefit everyone.
> I tend to believe that such qualifications come from misunderstanding
> git's benefits or simply trying to use in the *exact* same manner as
> SVN (which can be done, but doesn't unleash the real benfits of git).
Exactly what I'm saying here: you first need to convert most of the
members before having any benefits of switchin the whole package tree