On 2011-03-25 11:39:17 Jason Hsu wrote: >Why do you prefer Subversion for the central repository and git for laptops? I can think of at least one reason: history. I haven't checked the default settings recently, but I seem to remember that git allowed "forced" pushes by default. This is great for your personal repositories, but not usually good for central repositories since a "forced" push can cause loss of history. Perhaps forced pushes are turned off when you create a shared / bare repository now; few central repositories are not created as one (or both) of these types. For laptops, or in any case where you may not have an active, reliable connection to the central repository, subversion just fails. You can't commit, branch, etc. All of the distributed VCSes support disconnected operations, even if they aren't the default. I prefer not-subversion for the central repository when developers are using a distributed VCS in practice. Subversion forces the history to be linearized, which often involves what git calls a "rebase". Whatever your DVCS calls it, it makes new "revisions/patches" that whose relationship with the original ones are not tracked. Requiring this process before getting changes into the central repository can limits some of the effectiveness of the DVCS model. (Last I heard though, PostgreSQL forces this behavior even though they are using a DVCS to manage their central repository; there were enough developers that found a linear history easier to work with that it became policy.) -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.