Comment The mystery is... (Score 2) 56
...why haven't they been doing this from the start?
...why haven't they been doing this from the start?
Yen.
Next question.
In this case, microwaved spam.
Replying on a GUI. Jesus wept.
So an svn "checkout" doesn't "clone"... harharhar, but a git "checkout" "reverts"... terrible humor. Sorry.
Well, they both can take a long ass time for an initial checkout/clone was all I was trying to say, I have never raced identical repositories with identical histories, but that would be mildly interesting.
TortoiseSVN (for example), right click drag, drop, select SVN Move versioned files here. That was exhausting.
So much worse than when, say SmartGit, gets stuck in an endless rebaseing state thereby complete fsking your local repo along with any stashes you may have.
But this is what you get for replying on a GUI.
However most GUI devs I work with (myself included) operate from the command line.
A few grade school problems? Imagine when they are *not* grade school problems.
BTW I will be content with using pure water, at whatever accepted definition of SATP you choose...
It is true, you must use "svn mv" as opposed to "mv."
The horror.
Pedaphiles: looked down upon by terrorists, communists, witches, drug lords, and file sharers the world over.
If it can produce waves powerful enough to dampen an earthquake, then it can produce an earthquake.
Not sure where that leaves "communist."
I thought svn was developed to fix the problems with cvs... which it has mostly accomplished.
Ha! I see just the opposite: git fucking up miserably to the point where a dev has to locally pull their changes, reclone, and overlay the changes... where svn I have never seen that.
Of course when the network goes down, so does svn.... choose your poison.
Both git and svn have the same performance hit for an initial checkout/clone. Ditto for a large team pushing changes when you update/pull. Git seems to "push" much faster than svn "commit".
Git "commit" is nothing of the sort it is basically a tagging mechanism - which is also awesome and its major strength IMO - maybe a local commit is a better description of it, but I digress. Git with its much more powerful merge functionality is also awesome.... right up to the point that something gets fucked up. Then... well... you will spend a few hours getting straightened out where with svn the fix usually takes 5 or so minutes.
When things are working well they seem to be about the same, honestly.
I use both git and svn heavily. They both have strengths and shortcomings. Git has far stronger merge and is very useful if you are a dev who has to be disconnected for any period of time. Svn is far easier to maintain from an admin point of view and is far simpler.
Choose your poison - both seem to work fine.
The major difference between bonds and bond traders is that the bonds will eventually mature.