On 01/03/2014 12:13 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
I can't make any cogent arguments about whether git is superior to subversion at the basic job of version control, whether it produces better workflows, or any similar argument. Generally speaking, I do think it's a good idea for projects like Apache to eat their own dogfood, which currently we do because we use subversion.
Regardless of preference, experience, dogfooding or workflows, git makes merging (branches and patches) a lot easier than SVN. For that reason alone I switched all of my repos from CVS/SVN to git a long time ago.
All the other arguments (like workflow, data integrity, tool support with things like gitlab) are secondary for me, but do represent a nice cherry on top.
There are some things that take a bit of getting used to, if you're a die-hard SVN/CVS user, but it's a hurdle that's well worth taking imo.
As for the "crappy license" someone mentioned .. that's a philosophical discussion at best. One that's easy to get carried away in and is ultimately irrelevant unless you're modifying git for your own project (which I very much hope you're not).
Just my two cents. - Bram --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
