[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Use of svnserve and Dropbox

From: Andreas Krey <a.krey_at_gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:56:27 +0200

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:06:31 +0000, David Brodbeck wrote:
...
> I suspect this is vi vs. Emacs all over again. People who have gotten used
> to the svn user interface (or CVS, for that matter) will find git clumsy;
> people who are used to git will find svn clumsy.

Partly, yes. svn has a tendency to define a base mechanism and let
that shine through, while git rather takes nonorthogonal shortcuts
which look strange but are useful. Example:

   svn resolve --accept=$whatever

is more orthogonal while the older

   svn resolved

is much simpler to use in the common case.

Likewise, the complete refusal to acknowledge the existence of
tags and branches leads to annoyingly unhelpful commands, like
having to tag and branch with 'svn cp' and explicitly naming
the t/t/b convention every time, or the need to name an explicit
working copy directory name on checkout because 'trunk' is really
not a good name usually.

This philosopy is there in a lot of places, to the extent that I
wonder whether the svn cli was actually intended to be used or
just exists as a reference implementation and to drive users into
GUI usage. TortoiseSVN does take the second-last path component
as the default for the working copy name when the last one is 'trunk',
for instance.

Andreas

-- 
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
Received on 2011-09-28 20:57:11 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.