1 |
On 25 May 2012 00:05, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
3 |
>> In that regard, git is nothing like for instance svn, where branches come |
4 |
>> at a much higher cost, as does merging between them. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> That's wrong. SVN branches are just about as cheap as git branches, |
7 |
> although merges used to be much more painful. I'm not sure how good |
8 |
> merging in recent SVN is. |
9 |
|
10 |
Cheapness ... maybe in binary disk utilization ( need an actual |
11 |
comparison here I think ), but in cognitive overheads, I'd argue git's |
12 |
branching system is definitely cheaper. Going from Git back to SVN, |
13 |
the mentality of "copy a directory and you have a new branch!!!" seems |
14 |
a bit crazy. |
15 |
|
16 |
And switching between branches in-place at a fixed disk location is |
17 |
definitely cheaper ( mentally at least ) than SVN. |
18 |
|
19 |
I hope I never have to use svn switch again :/ |
20 |
-- |
21 |
Kent |
22 |
|
23 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
24 |
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
25 |
|
26 |
http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz |