On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 01:34:27PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:34:26PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > Also, I am currently writing my Bachelor thesis which compares the
> > state of tree conflict handling in various version control systems.
>
> I would be interested in it as well. I remember reading about very poor
> merge support in Subversion <= 1.4 (at least compared to git). I would
> be curious about the current situation. On the other side you're (as a
> Subversion developer) maybe biased.
Well, I may be biased, but my study isn't. Subversion hasn't been
covered yet, but I plan to cover it, time permitting. And if I manage
to cover Subversion, it will get the bashing it deserves.
I don't think this concern is valid in the first place.
There's not much point in trying to make Subversion look good at
handling tree conflicts when everyone knows that there are a lot
of problems with it. What's the point in trying to cover that up?
After all, that's why we're working on improving it, right?
Because we know Subversion currently sucks at tree conflicts really,
really bad.
> At least I noticed during the last time that git has a much deeper
> learning curve.
Yes, git is geared towards technical users. But git is also
exceptionally good at tree conflicts with files (for the cases
I'm testing, anyway). So you get quite some value in return for
your efforts of learning how to use it -- which sort of implies
understanding how it works to some extent, thus the technical edge.
Tree conflicts involving directories are a different story, though.
Not treating directories as first-class objects seems to have
some implications in the tree conflicts area...
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-08-14 14:07:46 CEST