| |||||||||||||
Lessons from PostgreSQL's Git transitionLessons from PostgreSQL's Git transitionPosted Oct 13, 2010 2:42 UTC (Wed) by yarikoptic (subscriber, #36795)In reply to: Lessons from PostgreSQL's Git transition by brouhaha Parent article: Lessons from PostgreSQL's Git transition
just my blunt 0.1 cents: SVN imho rests on an analogy which, at first sight, is user-friendly; but it impairs mind clarity to absorb the main notion of DVCS such as git and hg later on -- it is 'branch is just a directory, you can copy it'. CVS is closer to the notion of GIT/HG branches since there they still live in a "hyperspace" and are appreciated as such.
on the other hand, git-svn is such a handy tool with its bidirectional flow, that it makes "transition" much easier, whenever people could develop entirely in git and commit back to SVN.
Altogether, I think that direct jump CVS -> GIT was the right route; it could be only better if done earlier ;)
(Log in to post comments)
Lessons from PostgreSQL's Git transition Posted Oct 13, 2010 11:50 UTC (Wed) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
Subversion tagging and branching (or rather: the lack of) is indeed a regression compared to CVS:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Subversion#Subversion...>
With Subversion you basically end up having to manage tags manually in some external document. For fun search the Subversion mailing lists: you will find numerous people explaining how convenient is the lack of tags!
|
|||||||||||||