[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Git vs SVN

2008/11/14 Miriam Ruiz <miriam@debian.org>:
> 2008/11/7 Vincent Fourmond <fourmond@debian.org>:
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Eddy Petrișor <eddy.petrisor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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?

> it at all, so no problem). For what I perceived, there are two groups
> of people here: those who understand git and its benefits and would
> definitely go for it, and those of us (I'm included) that don't really
> understand git but feel that it has a somehow difficult learning
> curve, or that it might take them some time they don't have to be able

I understand. The main thing to remember when trying to understand git is
that you should take the plunge and drop a big chunk of what you know
about svn, cvs or other centralised VCS and put it aside during the first steps.

I also recommend the "Git - SVN Crash Course" and while some of the
("extra") command won't make sense initially, it can be more clear when you
think that git thinks in terms of "my working copy contains the repo, too".
All of the primary operations (commit, diff, checkout, tagging, branching)
happen on local repo without any dialog with the remote server, but in order
to publish those changes, an extra step is necessary, which involves talking
to the server.

> to learn. I'm also concerned for it being an obstacle for new members
> of the team, but I guess most of that can be solved with some recipes,
> as we already have in the wiki page [1]

I think that new people would be catered enough through recipes, and once
they start to understand the logic behind git, they can do more sophisticated
operations. If one wants to join us, I don't think git will be a show stopper.

> I mean, if you (or other members of the team) are sure it's worth it,

I am sure. Only the benefit of being able to no longer store tarballs
is (for me)
reason enough to switch. Add to that the ability to track upstream git and svn
repos, the speed it has, the possibility to easily create experimental packages
from upstream-VCS-bleeding-edge code, and there's no reason not to switch ;-) .

>>  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.
> Maybe if we decided to go to git we should develop a way to help all
> the members of the team to have a smooth transition? It's probably

Should we schedule some online tutorial/hands-on training in order to achieve
more diffusion of git knowledge within the team?

> just a matter of losing our fears and getting comfortable with it.
> Having both SVN and git is a practical solution, but is definitely
> sub-optimal, I guess we all know that.

Clearly suboptimal.

> I have yet to understand git to be able to see the benefits, but I
> have the feeling that most of the team would be open to make a move
> towards git if we could have a smooth transition.

Maybe creating a wiki page with "how to release/new upstream/tag/etc"
instructions for SVN and git, with a side-by-side comparison?

Are there any DGT live meetings scheduled in the next 3-6 months?
Could we do that somehow?

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein

Reply to: