On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 06:44 -0400, Michael Goulish wrote:
> Oh, I don't think this is a "me too" thing.
> I have actually met some of these guys, and I
> can assure you that they do not, in any other way,
> seem very susceptible to fashion trends.
> Git has a bit of a wackiness issue if you ask me,
> but the distributed nature of git seems to better
> fit the distributed nature of open source projects.
> I think that's why it has spread so quickly in the
> open source communities, and probably should do
> likewise here.
I forgot one very important benefit of moving to git in my previous rant
- distribution as Mick points out. What does that mean?
The SVN/CVS/ClearCase model is to have a central "authority" repo which
is good, but the *only* way to collaborate within the source code
control system is via that central repo, which is less good. You don't
want everyone to use the central repo as a scratchpad, as it will grow
out of control. But sometimes developers need to collaborate on
something that is not yet ready for the central repo. With SVN, they're
stuck with mailing each other patches which is a big pain.
Git allows & encourages sharing from developer to developer. I can push
an experimental branch to Micks repo (if we have network access), or to
a github account or whatever so we can collaborate on something that is
not yet ready to push up to the central repo, but with all the benefits
of the source control system to manage the collaboration.
That's also useful for other things, e.g. I back up work in progress on
my laptop by pushing it to a git clone on a company server. When I need
to do cross-platform testing I push my branch to git clones on different
OSes. If I find a bug in windows, say, I can fix it on windows, test
it, commit the fix on windows, pull/push the fixed branch to all the
platforms so I can re-test etc. etc.