Re: Proposed git migration plan
Le 27/08/2014 10:13, Sandro Tosi a écrit :
<snip>
> Offline commits? how many time (for real..) you badly needed it? i
> guess so few that if you (for one time) just do a big commit instead
> of a storm of micro commit the world wont stop
As a side effect, that also mean you don't have to use a potentially
lagged network connection when doing simple operations. There is
nothing I hate more than waiting for network when using the commands
log, commit or blame.
> is there anything else so "attractive" about git?
Cheap local branches which let you pill up work in progress patches /
rewrite without having to keep several copy of the same svn repo. The
branches in git are just a name pointing to a commit in the tree.
The stash, which let you save your uncommited changes and come back to
them later (think of it as lightweight branches). That is really nice
when you have to interrupt your workflow, stash it, handle the
interrupt, reapply your stash and resume work.
Tags can be signed with gpg. They are a pointer to a commit just like
branches, and hence don't force you to do a full copy to create a tag.
Switching between branches is a breeze and does not need network access
either.
> If we don't define *upfront* what are the problems we currently have
> and that we want to solve, then we're just proposing a technical
> exercise without a real gain. and I cant stress this point never
> enough.
I agree there, would be nice to list the problems with svn. But I guess
most of them are related to svn being a bad (and slow) CSV system.
--
Antoine "hashar" Musso
Reply to: