Subject: Re: [boost] Git vs SVN - review
From: caustik (caustik_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-31 14:17:25
The question is not "is GIT better than SVN?"
The question is "is GIT so much better than SVN that the gains
post-migration far exceed the costs associated with ramping up developers to
the new setup + the amount of time to actually execute on the migration"
To be clear - I couldn't care less about which way it goes, I just chimed in
because I could emphasize with the people who just can't be bothered to deal
with changing revision control system, and thought the analogy conveyed that
perspective. From what I've heard, git is pretty legit, but I'm a late
adopter and prefer the comfort of familiarity over always hopping onto the
latest thing before it's really matured.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Gregory Crosswhite <
> Sigh... it's poor analogies like this that lead to bad decision making!
> What's really going on is that a version control system is a series of
> tubes. The problem with SVN is that the tubes are thinner than the Git
> tubes which means that they are much more likely to get clogged, which
> causes patches to get dropped. What holds people up from upgrading is that
> if any individual upgrades the tube that connects to their home from SVN to
> Git then they see no benefits because they are still limited by the narrow
> capacity of the rest of the system. This is why we need everyone to upgrade
> all at once so we can get the full capacity of Git and thus be able to dump
> entire truckloads of patches into the system without clogging it!
> On 1/31/11 9:58 AM, caustik wrote:
>> <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
>> 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
>> the store with him and also buy iPhones. The key to this analogy is the
>> 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
>> single active developer will have a loss of time and productivity on
>> of a migration like this, and the resulting benefits of the migration are
>> 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
>>> I hate the merging process - it's slow and cumbersome and wastes a lot of
>>> 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
>>> go along with what ever is decided. I'm just hoping that those who make
>>> decision take into account those of use who are VCS luddites.
>>> Robert Ramey
>>> Unsubscribe& other changes:
>> Unsubscribe& other changes:
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk