very well answer, i'm totally agree! but i keep thinking for apache top level projects svn is better...
- Romain 2011/11/27 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > I'm definitely not saying that GIT doesn't scale. Actually Linux is FAR > bigger than most Apache projects. > > BUT: it requires some different mindset! > > > I remember well how I felt when switching from CVS to SVN and first saw > the svn copy and svn mv stuff. I really felt this was a huge step back from > CVS (and still feel that way for this very part). SVN did make some design > decisions which are absolutely elegant, and for other cases just suck. With > GIT it's the same! > > > GIT is tremendously cool because you have all the history locally > available. Also the merging and tree-ish stuff is really 1A. > > I tried to sum up the pros and cons in the CouchDB wiki [2], but it > basically boils down to the following difference: > > *) SVN is file-oriented. All the history is bound to a file. If you rename > the file on the filesystem, then SVN will loose all the history. But it's > easy to move files and even directories around with svn mv and retain all > the history. > > *) GIT is repository oriented. All the history is just a diff applied to a > previous state. It doesn't matter if code got moved between files or just > rename a file - git will perfectly know what happened, because all changes > are just diffs... Otoh, it's not possible to track/handle/change/move files > without looking at the whole repository! It's therefor also not possible to > maintain 1 big fat repo for all ASF projects as we do in SVN. > > > As I said: it has both pros and cons, and people must choose wisely what > they need. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > [2] http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/SVNvsGIT > > > >________________________________ > > From: dsh <[email protected]> > >To: [email protected] > >Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 9:05 PM > >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - OpenEJB to use Git (Fwd: [PROPOSAL] Wicket to > use Git@ASF) > > > >I would even say just because Git doesn't scale as it looks like from > >what you've said doesn't mean DVCS as a concept doesn't scale in > >general. > > > >Cheers > >Daniel > > > >On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> Personnaly i think DVCS are great for new, small and not very active > >> projects. > >> > >> I'm not sure of the gain for us (from a project point of view) > >> > >> - Romain > >> > >> > >> 2011/11/27 David Blevins <[email protected]> > >> > >>> > >>> On Nov 27, 2011, at 4:35 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > >>> > >>> > * tags and branches are always repository-global! It's not possible > to > >>> just tag a single subdirectory as you can do in SVN. You really need to > >>> know upfront how you will going to release your stuff later (all the > >>> modularisation thingy), because that's exactly the way you need to > separate > >>> your repositories. > >>> > > >>> > * git does not support a real sparse checkout handling and > >>> git-submodules handling still sucks. > >>> > > >>> > * you cannot move a directory with all his history from one git repo > to > >>> another one (e.g. sandbox to proper) if they don't have a common > tree-ish > >>> ancestor. > >>> > >>> Disappointing. We move stuff in and out of trunk all the time. And as > >>> you point out on the Maven list, having a ton of tiny repos, some > active > >>> some not, is really frustrating. Reorganizing has serious > consequences -- > >>> dead repos, lost history, etc. > >>> > >>> The "one big ASF repo" that SVN offers is really elegant. Git's > pension > >>> to force you to split things up into tiny islands between which code > cannot > >>> flow with history seems to eat away at some of the advantages Git > brings. > >>> > >>> Are there plans in the Git roadmap to improve this? > >>> > >>> Why are people not holding their feet to the fire and making them fix > such > >>> basic things? > >>> > >>> > >>> -David > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > >
