Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial? easy merging in svn, how about git/hg?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial? easy merging in svn, how about git/hg?
From: Frank Birbacher (bloodymir.crap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-28 14:23:40

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 21.03.12 12:12, schrieb Philippe Vaucher:
>> 2) Having one's own branch of an SVN repository as one's own.
>> 
> 
> That could work, but it'll yield a repository where you have about
> 2-3 branches per developper (yes, people using git/mercurial often
> have lots of features/tests branches) that nobody cares about.

Why is that bad? At my work we are using svn and I have like 8
branches (not all of them are currently active I confess.) I put my
branches not into /branches, but into /users/fbirbacher. This way
noone has to care about them.

> Also, storing test branches on the public repo is just silly imho.

I agree there is a difference between this approach on a company svn
repo server and a public svn repo like boost. But still, even on boost
I create my own sandbox branch to do development.

> Simply creating a branch and then merging it back was a nightmare
> with svn. If you typed your command wrong, or did an error, then
> everyone suffered of your mistake. You then had to correct it in a
> rush before it created problems for others, etc.
> 
> With git/hg, when you do a mistake, you simply cancel your local
> merge and redo it again until you did the right thing, then you
> push.

This suggests 1st mistakes you do in svn cannot be repaired, and 2nd
you will spot every mistake in git/hg before you push. As I
understand, once you push to a public repo and then discover a mistake
your mistakes will be just as visible as with svn. I agree there is a
chance to find some errors before publishing, but with svn I spot
errors in commands I run on my working copy easily before committing.

> To be honest, I feel that all the people that "cannot see the
> advantages of a DVCS" are people who either didn't try it, or tried
> it just enough to reassure themselves it wasn't worth it. Any tool
> can suck if you're not willing to *really* see what it's worth.

I feel you didn't try enough of svn: creating a branch and merging it
back is really a simple thing to do in svn.

cd someemtpydir
svn co svn://server/svn/trunk .
# create branch:
svn cp ^/trunk ^/branches/my-branch -m "branch"
# edit branch:
svn switch . ^/branches/my-branch
echo "new" > new.txt
svn add new.txt
svn ci -m "new file"
# switch back to trunk and merge:
svn switch ^/trunk .
svn merge ^/branches/my-branch .
# revise working copy before commit, or revert and try again
# svn revert -R .
svn ci -m "merged branch"

So how would that go with git or hg? Would it be easier?

Frank
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net

iEYEARECAAYFAk9zVywACgkQhAOUmAZhnmrxdwCcCdp/BgPDgncVv/EhzwiT7Kgz
jTIAn15VrrdubgssGk0u4JvxsiXPUEYG
=yE/F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----