Trying hard not to get sucked into the git debate again but I am almost offended to be offered this ridiculously simplified argument:
> For reminder, the argument was that it is quite easy to provide a > contribution with Subversion: > $ svn co "<URL>" > $ cd trunk > $ mvn test > $ svn diff > "issue<xxxx>.patch" > When has it ever been that easy - unless it's maybe contributing a typo fix that gets applied right after submission? If you guys need to start the debate all over again at least come up with a real world scenario: $ somevcs checkout "<URL"> you do some modifications meanwhile someone else commits changes now you want to integrate these changes and see if you modifications still apply # somecvs magic $ somebuildtool test $ somecvs diff > "issue<xxxx>.patch" submit the patch wait 2 weeks up to 6 months for you patch to be looked at be asked to update your patch so it applies cleanly with further changes in trunk update your patch and re-submit 2 weeks later: yay! it's in trunk now If anyone here has ever maintained a larger patch for bit longer - I am sorry if I have brought back some painful memories from when you were using svn. I do not care about [cli] much anymore - said by others before there are much better libs out there. I so do not care about what tool to use - but I want to use the right tool for the right job. And as tools change, so does what is "right". Maybe an angle worth exploring for some when thinking about the whole VCS debate. Torsten out - fire away
