Re: Conversion from SVN to Git

On 04/30/12 09:00, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
>
> Yes, the move is much more "away from Subversion" than towards any particular
> other VCS. Specifically we're fed up with the abysmal management of merges
> which Subversion just can't do well. We're also wanting to make it possible
> for anyone to have useful branches of our codebase without having to have
> commit rights to any part of our repositories.

That would explain why I've not had much trouble with Subversion. I have
generally been the sole committer so branching and merging have never
been much of an issue.

> Mercurial: I've not spent a lot of time with this. Horror stories of data
> loss and confusing errors from those I know who still love it have
> prevented me.

I'm using this at the moment but only as a "satellite" to Subversion. I
have Mercurial on my laptop and sync it with the central Subversion
repository when I'm in the office. In that mode it works pretty nicely.

> DARCS: I just don't trust it to be predictably performant. I've seen people
> wait hours for a commit to complete sometimes. It seems to be a nice
> idea in theory, but I don't approve of its reality.

I tried it many years ago but gave up after it ate my source, in that
way SourceSafe is famous for, twice in 2 days. I imagine it is more
reliable now if not faster.

> I hope this was helpful/interesting for you.

Yes, thank you.

--
Matthew Hambley