Re: [boost] Git vs SVN - review

Subject: Re: [boost] Git vs SVN - review
From: caustik (caustik_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-31 12:58:46

<worst analogy ever>

The way I look at it -- it's kind of like having some friends who want the
latest iPhone. You don't really care about getting an iPhone, your old phone
makes phone calls and you're used to it. You have other more pressing
concerns. Except, this friend really wants the iPhone, but it just so
happens that the only way he can get it is if you and all your friends go to
the store with him and also buy iPhones. The key to this analogy is the cost
associated with migrating to git is applied to all those people who don't
really want an iPhone =) .. it's easy to underestimate that cost, but every
single active developer will have a loss of time and productivity on account
of a migration like this, and the resulting benefits of the migration are of
debatable importance.

</worst analogy ever>

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Here's my take on Git vs SVN
>
> All VCS systems are an extra layer of hassle.  Once I learn enough about
> them to do the job, I'm happy to forget about them.
>
> I'm mostly happy with SVN.  I only commit/update occasionally.  Most of
> my time on boost is spent testing on my own machine with windows VC
> and gcc.
>
> I love the windows interface - it's great for someone with my attitude
> about
> this.
>
> I hate the merging process - it's slow and cumbersome and wastes a lot of
> my
> time - when I do it which is only once every three months.
>
> So - I don't really have strong feelings about this topic and I'm happy to
> go along with what ever is decided.  I'm just hoping that those who make
> the
> decision take into account those of use who are VCS luddites.
>
> Robert Ramey
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>