Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 13:39:08
Message-Id: CAATnKFAkXimZPBHrE0VU6SgRXkKYKAkYH-zv6N0zJTzaNbMxgA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by Dirkjan Ochtman
On 25 May 2012 00:05, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: >> In that regard, git is nothing like for instance svn, where branches come >> at a much higher cost, as does merging between them. > > That's wrong. SVN branches are just about as cheap as git branches, > although merges used to be much more painful. I'm not sure how good > merging in recent SVN is.
Cheapness ... maybe in binary disk utilization ( need an actual comparison here I think ), but in cognitive overheads, I'd argue git's branching system is definitely cheaper. Going from Git back to SVN, the mentality of "copy a directory and you have a new branch!!!" seems a bit crazy. And switching between branches in-place at a fixed disk location is definitely cheaper ( mentally at least ) than SVN. I hope I never have to use svn switch again :/ -- Kent perl -e  "print substr( \"edrgmaM  SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz

Replies