[dna-dev] Version control poll

[John Verhaeg]

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