For the time being, we have too many things on our plate to switch. I will likely bring
this up again in a few months, after we all get sick of SVN branches.
Thanks for the good discussion!
Best regards,
Randall
On Dec 10, 2009, at 2:39 PM, John Verhaeg wrote:
On Dec 9, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Randall Hauch wrote:
> Git-SVN provides this functionality locally. But that's a still nowhere near
what using Git all 'round will give you. Right now, if I needed a fix that you have
locally, I would need to get a patch (even if we were both using Git-SVN locally). If we
were using Git all 'round, we'd still push commits on our branches to a shared Git
(and merge them onto the 'trunk' branch (we'd probably use a branch name that
corresponded to the release effort), but I could very easily pull in some or all of your
changes in my branch. Easy-peasy.
> I don't want to switch to Git because it's cool or fun or state of the art.
I want to switch because Git-SVN already makes my life an order of magnitude easier (lots
of branch switching), and would be another order of magnitude if we went whole-hog Git.
Yes, all the committer's processes would change, because we'd be moving to doing
all work on branches, and the main release branch becomes nothing but a merge point.
I've been having lots of version troubles with the Eclipse SVN connector not being
compatible with the command-line version on my machine, so my vote is to convert to git
now. Purely selfish reasons, but there it is.
Thanks,
JPAV