[oe] Reconsidering the work flow and how the SCM system fits in

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello,

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:09:58 +0000
Richard Purdie <rpurdie at rpsys.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 01:49 +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:49:48 +0000
> > Richard Purdie <rpurdie at rpsys.net> wrote:
> > > I asked around about hg and this did come up, you don't get cheap
> > > branching like you do with git, you have to use a separate
> > > directory/checkout per branch.
> > > 
> > > For anyone who's used git, cheap branching is a wonderful
> > > thing[1].
> > 
> > I personally don't see anything wonderful in that, and glad that
> > some orthodoxes share this point of view. Kernel people have it
> > because they are poor, poor people who created hundreds of
> > megabytes of entities and don't have big enough hdds to deal with
> > them comfortably (and if they have, their users don't), so they
> > must play such weird tricks as the need to evaporate current branch
> > to work on another.
> >
> > I can call svn as witness - it supports both models. But I yet need
> > to see someone who in sober mind and given a choice, would use "svn
> > switch" back and forth instead of checking out needed branches to
> > have them side by side.
> 
> svn switch is in no way similar to the way git's cheap branching
> works.

Doesn't it? That must be only due to my naivete regarding git's cheap
branching. Because otherwise they would seem oh so similar to me - svn
revisions are lightweight, any of them can be a tag, a branch, and you
can do arbitrary travels in time and space with svn, all using one
consistent interface.

Well, eager to fix aforementioned naivete, I proceeded to google, and
the first hit on the matter I got was good blog-talk we just recently
discussed: http://blog.madism.org/index.php/2008/02/19/150-git-branches

"but because they are a cheap operation, not in the SVN sense at all,
but because a branch in git is a name, and 40 hexadecimal bytes". Yeah,
that must be it! The reason why svn branches are in no way similar to
git's!

I did stop with this hit, preferring to stay with my naivete - it's
just more comfortable to think of git as just yet another SCM with
its own set of known issues, than as the center of the world, a magic
tool to solve all development needs. Just my 2 cent opinion.


> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:pmiscml at gmail.com