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

Re: svn vs. git

From: Nathan Hartman <hartman.nathan_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:59:21 -0400

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Circling back to the original point. Local commits for Subversion,
effectively transforming it to a DVCS or distributed version control
> system, could be very cool.

You really should head over to dev@ and provide your thoughts on the [RFC]
Shelving and Checkpointing thread.

Personally I think Subversion should stay Subversion and not become git.
That is, it should stay centralized version control, because it is simple,
effective, and comes with all the advantages described earlier in this
thread. With the addition of these two local features, you could work
"offline," construct a complex commit in multiple steps, use it as a local
"undo/redo," and use it as an alternative to short-lived bug fix or feature
branches. While git-svn already makes this and much more possible,
advantages to staying within Subversion include: easier learning curve,
simplicity, and a more coherent solution.
Received on 2017-07-24 21:59:29 CEST

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