On 25 May 2012 00:05, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@...> 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
|
