We have some tasks to do (like revert and merge scripts) but I see no problems 
with that.

Apart that I have to think a bit more about the workflow (I guess Taher's 
proposition should be fine)

I must though say that you will certainly see a slow-down on my side. I'm used to a bunch of svn tools I use and will have to find similar for Git. I already use TortoiseGit for 5 years so it should not be a big deal...


Le 15/01/2019 à 07:31, Swapnil Mane a écrit :
+1 for using Git.
Personally, my experience is also very good with Git.

- Best Regards,
Swapnil M Mane

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 2:05 PM Nicolas Malin <nicolas.ma...@nereide.fr>

On 12/01/2019 20:56, Taher Alkhateeb wrote:
It's awesome to revive this discussion Michael. +1 of course.

We need to think practically of our workflows though and whether we
want a linear vs non-linear history model. I prefer the latter to
allow proper decentralized workflows but it's up to everyone here to
decide. I think the overall process is described thoroughly and we can
adhere to it for the most part.
We can easily switch from svn to git without change own commit process
on first time by patch application.

If a commiter want use merge feature, the squash function simulate the
application patch.

So no opposite to move with this few remark


Reply via email to