I appreciate your willingness to contribute. Nevertheless, I think that
* git is a poor fit for Derby's culture of incremental development and
is, instead, better suited to large projects where teams work in
isolation from one another on large contributions
* git has the worst merge tool I have ever used
* git is extremely confusing for developers coming from a subversion
mind set (like myself)
* everyone I know who uses git has ended up shooting themselves in the foot
Here is how I rank (in descending order) the repository management tools
I have used:
* subversion (simple model, good merge tool)
* mercurial (complex model but good merge tool)
* perforce (lousy merge tool)
* clearcase (overarchitected)
* git (overarchitected, lousy merge tool)
My $0.02,
-Rick
On 12/17/18 4:20 PM, Alex O'Ree wrote:
I wasn't at first either. It seems unnecessary at a glance. It does
greatly simplify accepting contributions from users without commit
rights. For outside committers, they can commit as much as they need
to without affecting the baseline. Which makes things much easier for
larger tasks. Pull requests and code reviews are much simpler than
reviewing a patch file. In general, merging branches is less painful.
Just my 2 cents. History is maintained with the conversion, in case
that's a concern.
So as someone that wants to contribute to this project, I'm asking the
question because it would make my life easier.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:05 AM Rick Hillegas
<rick.hille...@gmail.com <mailto:rick.hille...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 12/16/18 4:16 PM, Alex O'Ree wrote:
> Has anyone suggested switching to git? ASF makes the change pretty
> painless
I'm not a git enthusiast.
