On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:10:46AM +0000, Vegard Øye wrote:
Still, I am curious as to why you think it would be "soooo much more convenient" to use something else than SVN. :) While a dozen arguments against SVN can be googled in a heartbeat, what are /your/ reasons for disliking it? I want to know.
Vegard
For my 2 cents, I am also a big fan of distributed version control, and git in particular. I use git for a largish project, a web browser in fact, and its flexibility is just delightful. On workflow criteria alone, it can do everything that hg and bzr can, plus, and probably faster. It doesn't get in the way by prescribing a particular workflow; instead it provides all the tools to support whatever your style of development, and opens possibilities for better workflows to fit each situation. One of the joys of distributed version control is that it frees you from having to send patches back and forth via email when collaborating with other people. (You can still do that if you want to of course.) A contributer just makes a publicly available clone, and gives you the pull url. You can then follow their progress, and cherry-pick their history as needed. Git has a staging area for commits. This decouples your changes from your commit, meaning that if you have several projects underway, you don't need to split up your work into separate branches if you don't want to. Because there is a staging area, you can still make small, single-feature commits, even if your working tree has other changes that you aren't ready to commit. The two areas where hg and bzr may be competitive are multiplatform support and *maybe* learning curve. But for my part, it would be a hard sell to convince me to give up git's flexibility for such cosmetics. For more evangelism ;) see http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ -- John Foerch