Archives
Archives
| From: | Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver | ||
| Date: | Thu, 24 May 2012 12:08:39 | ||
| Message-Id: | CAKmKYaAALu6YBxQsFB5zr9KoMC2th8741KwkRvtVbck5vmBEuw@mail.gmail.com | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> | ||
| 1 | On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 | > In that regard, git is nothing like for instance svn, where branches come |
| 3 | > at a much higher cost, as does merging between them. |
| 4 | |
| 5 | That's wrong. SVN branches are just about as cheap as git branches, |
| 6 | although merges used to be much more painful. I'm not sure how good |
| 7 | merging in recent SVN is. |
| 8 | |
| 9 | Let's please stay a little on-topic? The migration will get there much |
| 10 | faster if we don't succumb to feature creep. |
| 11 | |
| 12 | Cheers, |
| 13 | |
| 14 | Dirkjan |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver | Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver | Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> |