A proposed Subversion vision and roadmap [LWN.net]

A proposed Subversion vision and roadmap

Posted Apr 3, 2010 22:06 UTC (Sat) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059)
In reply to: A proposed Subversion vision and roadmap by RCL
Parent article: A proposed Subversion vision and roadmap

"By no means git is simple."

OK, then how about building (yet another) simple front-end for git?
It does a great job on the back end. If the front end is not simple
enough, build/extend just that.

(Log in to post comments)

A proposed Subversion vision and roadmap

Posted Apr 4, 2010 15:28 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

I have had zero experencies with source code control and I found Git much easier to use then anything else. I've tried SVN and CVS in the past, but they were just too difficult.

git init
git add .
git commit -a

boom, boom, and boom. Done.

I don't have to worry about renaming stuff, moving files around, moving directories around, deleting files, deleting directories, etc etc.. There is very little with git that prevents me from using a git repo as any other directory.

The only major problem I keep seeing people having with git is the lack of central repository.

It's very easy to have a central repository with git though... you just setup a repo, call it 'The Central Repository' in your mind and just commit and pull to it and never use it directly.

The biggest problems I've had with Git involved pushing from one repository to another that have been seperated for a long time. Having a 'central' git repo that is push/pull only solves that for me.

I still use the 'distributed' stuff since I will commit dozens a time a day while working online or offline, or behind firewalls, and on multiple disconnected machines.

Hell, I would not mind running a commit every time I do ":wq" on a vim session.

A proposed Subversion vision and roadmap

Posted Apr 5, 2010 4:32 UTC (Mon) by Kit (guest, #55925) [Link]

>I have had zero experencies with source code control and I
>found Git much easier to use then anything else. I've tried
>SVN and CVS in the past, but they were just too difficult.

This was exactly my experience. The (crappy) documentation I could find for SVN (I didn't bother with CVS, since it'd already been supplanted by SVN for a while by then) assumed I'd be using SSH or Apache to connect to the repository, and I found the SSH setup to be horribly ugly for a purely local workflow (I didn't even care to bother with Apache, that seemed a bit silly to me).

> boom, boom, and boom. Done.

Those commands are more than enough to get you started on a personal project, and it's fairly simple to pick up the other stuff as your needs expand (I was shocked at how simple branching was... I actually thought I had done it wrong since I'd read so much about how poorly SVN handles it). Plus, being able to make commits even when offline or when you don't want to make them public yet (but you don't want one massive commit containing a crap load of work all over the code base) is easy as hell with git (you just commit and don't push!).