Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
Hello list, I have been monitoring this thread and thought to share this absolutely great summary by David that I found recently posted on the Jenkins mailing list that suits apt for this conversation. I agree with all his points. Original thread here -- https://groups.google.com/group/jenkinsci-users/browse_thread/thread/15f3a85e240a9a33?hl=en-GB Git is not "better" than Subversion. Distributed version control is not "better" than centralized version control. However, that doesn't mean that Subversion is better or that centralized is better. It's all about circumstances. There are many circumstances where Git excels. I use Git as my person version control system, and I even have projects on GitHub (including several Subversion hooks). Using Git is easier than using Subversion when I'm the only one using it. No need for starting or stopping a Subversion server. And, GitHub makes it ridiculously easy to share it. Git has another advantage too. I've had people who've downloaded my work, made changes, then sent me -- via email, the Git patches. I can review them, and then add them back into my GitHub repository. Git makes it easy because everyone has a repository, and each repository can accept patches from other repositories. So, if I find Git so useful, why don't I introduce it to our corporate environments? Git has two main powers: Distributed repositories and a lackadaisical attitude towards security. This works great for Linux. Torvalds only has to accept changes from two or three people. Everyone else who wants to contribute to Linux has to find a sponsor who will accept their changes into their sponsor's repository. Those sponsors have sponsors, and onwards to the official Linux repository. tens of thousands of people might be making code changes in Linux, but all Torvalds has to know are the two or three people he'll accept changes from. It's a web of trust. Now, let's look at a typical corporate environment. With an open source project, if tens of thousands of people have your source code, it's a smashing success. If you're a bank, and tens of thousands of people have access to the source of your trading algorithms, it's not a success. You need a centralized security system. Let's look at how the corporate development works. There is one, and only one repository that's official. All the desktop repos mean nothing. All the shared team repos mean nothing. Unless it's in the official corporate repository, it means nothing. That means Git's true strengths, it's easy attitude towards security, and the power of its distributed repository are rendered null and void. The true advantages it would have over a centralized system like Subversion just don't matter. A long time ago, I was a ClearCase administrator. ClearCase uses the idea of "streams" (branches really). Developers work on their private "development stream", and then deliver (merge) their change onto the "integration stream". It was the integration stream where builds would take place. It's all the disadvantages of a centralized repository system with all the disadvantages of a distributed repository system. My job as CM was mother hen. I would walk around and pester the developers to commit their changes or rebase their stream (i.e. merge the changes in the integration code into their branch). If I was lucky, we would somehow avoid the merge hell that release dates became. I had QA on my back because they would never have enough time to actually test everything. My first job outside of ClearCase was at a shop with three dozen or so developers all using CVS. How do they create developer branches? They don't. Instead, they all work on the same mainline branch. In fact, they rarely ever branches. Well, I thought, this wouldn't work. I was wrong. I never saw a development shop run so smoothly. Developers took small bites in their changes. They were more careful in what they were doing and how those change might affect other developers. Come release time, QA had already tested almost all of the changes. Instead, they pointed out the bugs that were patched. When it was time to release the code, it was tested and there was little last minute crunch. I suddenly realized what forcing everyone to work on a centralized repository would do. It forced everyone to work together. It forced people to communicate with each other. It forced developers to think before they made any changes. And, that's why Subversion might be better in a corporate environment. In fact, in some ways, Git is worse than ClearCase UCM. At least under ClearCase UCM I could peek at the developer's work and know what to expect when the "delivery" took place. It was in their own branch, but it was accessible in the repository. With Git, I wouldn't even have that. A developer might be working on a walloping change, and I have no way of knowing until they present it three days before the release. Subversion is also simpler than Git. A public Git repository still depend
Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Andrew Gray wrote: > Hi All, > > At one client site we are using SVN. Client is a big corporate with > projects teams spread across 3 buildings on the same site. Project teams > are often sitting next to each other. > > I am trying to convince collegues that we should move to GIT. I have sent > them all the usual "GIT vs SVN" and "Why GIT is better than SVN" URLs. > > The pushback I am getting is: > 1. What does GIT give me that I don't get with SVN > 2. It is just another thing I have to learn and why should I when I don't > know what benefit I get. > > Can anyone assist with providing a compelling reason to move to GIT. > > Regards, > > Andrew > > > You may want to read this http://joelonsoftware.com/items/2010/03/17.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
hi Godmar, what i meant is that with Git when you clone you get the entire history, all branches, everything. so if 50 developers do a git clone, then you have 50 full backups. if the hard disc with the "central" repo dies, then you can easily recreate it from any of the 50 clones. but i agree with you that commits that are not pushed/pulled somewhere, are typically not backed up. best greetings, radovan On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:19:40 +0100, Godmar Back wrote: On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:40 AM, radovan bast wrote: - you get backup "for free" Could you explain this point? I would have made that argument for SVN/CVS, really any centralized system. In git, you're dealing with (possibly numerous) repositories on different machines. Unless all the machines on which they're located are backed up, you don't have backup (unless you push/pull every commit to an upstream repository on a backed-up machine, such as github). Using SVN, where the SVN repository is (typically) housed on a server that is backed up, every commit is an automatic backup. In git, it's not, unless you do a commit+push every time you'd do a commit in SVN. - Godmar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:40 AM, radovan bast wrote: > - you get backup "for free" > Could you explain this point? I would have made that argument for SVN/CVS, really any centralized system. In git, you're dealing with (possibly numerous) repositories on different machines. Unless all the machines on which they're located are backed up, you don't have backup (unless you push/pull every commit to an upstream repository on a backed-up machine, such as github). Using SVN, where the SVN repository is (typically) housed on a server that is backed up, every commit is an automatic backup. In git, it's not, unless you do a commit+push every time you'd do a commit in SVN. - Godmar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
Tassilo, No need to apologize it was my mistake on how I read your post. On Mar 8, 2012 7:34 AM, "Tassilo Horn" wrote: > Chris Stone writes: > > Hi Chris, > > > Your reply may have been a joke or it may not have been. Either way I > > feel your post added nothing of value to the thread and is therefore a > > waste of bandwidth. The link you posted may be of value, however I was > > offended by your comments. > > I don't deserve any credits on this statement. In the google tech talk > that was linked in the message I replied to, Linus makes this statement > with a twinkle. Therefore, I started my reply with "That talk..." to > make the context clear. > > Sorry, if that wasn't clear enough. > > > I use both git and svn and I am neither ugly or stupid. > > So do I, and clearly the used VCS has no immediate effect on beauty or > wisdom. I think we can agree on that. > > Bye, > Tassilo > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Git for human beings" group. > To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
Chris Stone writes: Hi Chris, > Your reply may have been a joke or it may not have been. Either way I > feel your post added nothing of value to the thread and is therefore a > waste of bandwidth. The link you posted may be of value, however I was > offended by your comments. I don't deserve any credits on this statement. In the google tech talk that was linked in the message I replied to, Linus makes this statement with a twinkle. Therefore, I started my reply with "That talk..." to make the context clear. Sorry, if that wasn't clear enough. > I use both git and svn and I am neither ugly or stupid. So do I, and clearly the used VCS has no immediate effect on beauty or wisdom. I think we can agree on that. Bye, Tassilo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
I wasn't trying to sound like I was taking the statement personally. Had it been made clear that the text of the post was a joke instead of being taken either way I would have a different outlook On Mar 8, 2012 6:52 AM, "tombert" wrote: > On Thursday, March 8, 2012 2:13:03 PM UTC+1, Chris Stone wrote: >> >> Your reply may have been a joke or it may not have been. Either way I >> feel your post added nothing of value to the thread and is therefore a >> waste of bandwidth. The link you posted may be of value, however I was >> offended by your comments. I use both git and svn and I am neither ugly or >> stupid. >> > I don't think the statement "... You are ugly and stupid if you don't use > git ..." was meant personally - it was a generallization like the one you > see on advertising spots: "If you eat this *yoghurt *you will get pretty > and healthy" > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Git for human beings" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/git-users/-/B_apgpQN860J. > To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 2:13:03 PM UTC+1, Chris Stone wrote: > > Your reply may have been a joke or it may not have been. Either way I feel > your post added nothing of value to the thread and is therefore a waste of > bandwidth. The link you posted may be of value, however I was offended by > your comments. I use both git and svn and I am neither ugly or stupid. > I don't think the statement "... You are ugly and stupid if you don't use git ..." was meant personally - it was a generallization like the one you see on advertising spots: "If you eat this *yoghurt *you will get pretty and healthy" -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/git-users/-/B_apgpQN860J. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
Your reply may have been a joke or it may not have been. Either way I feel your post added nothing of value to the thread and is therefore a waste of bandwidth. The link you posted may be of value, however I was offended by your comments. I use both git and svn and I am neither ugly or stupid. On Mar 8, 2012 5:53 AM, "Tassilo Horn" wrote: > Serge Matveenko writes: > > > By the way there is very useful video for getting people know benefits > > of git better. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 "Tech Talk: Linus Torvalds > on git" > > That talk also highlights the most prominent disadvantage of SVN > compared to git. You are ugly and stupid if you don't use git. You > don't want to be ugly and stupid, and neither do you colleagues, right? > > There's also a tutorial depicting how to become pretty and smart: > > > http://thetrilemma.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/git-for-ugly-and-stupid-people/ > > Every other argument like cheap local branches and stuff like that is > subordinate to not being ugly and stupid. ;-) > > Bye, > Tassilo > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Git for human beings" group. > To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
Serge Matveenko writes: > By the way there is very useful video for getting people know benefits > of git better. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 "Tech Talk: Linus Torvalds on git" That talk also highlights the most prominent disadvantage of SVN compared to git. You are ugly and stupid if you don't use git. You don't want to be ugly and stupid, and neither do you colleagues, right? There's also a tutorial depicting how to become pretty and smart: http://thetrilemma.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/git-for-ugly-and-stupid-people/ Every other argument like cheap local branches and stuff like that is subordinate to not being ugly and stupid. ;-) Bye, Tassilo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 06:02, Andrew Gray wrote: > The pushback I am getting is: > 1. What does GIT give me that I don't get with SVN > 2. It is just another thing I have to learn and why should I when I don't > know what benefit I get. It is very common mistake to try to convince regular developers to move to git. Such tactic will not succeed usually. Git does not have any benefits for the developer who just do "svn co, svn up". Git's benefits are in the Team Lead and Release Engineer scopes. You just need to convince key persons to move to git. Other will thank you later when central repo will crash or you will guide somebody over series of "git blame, git bisect, git rebase or git filter-branch". By the way there is very useful video for getting people know benefits of git better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 "Tech Talk: Linus Torvalds on git" -- Serge Matveenko se...@matveenko.ru http://www.ohloh.net/accounts/lig http://ru.linkedin.com/in/sergematveenko -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
For me the most valueable reason is that you can commit without affecting the repository on the server - thus you can commit in small steps and finally when finished push to the server. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/git-users/-/eu7dqtSXJxQJ. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
- you get backup "for free" - don't need the network for most operations (you can do work while on transatlantic flight) - most important for us: possibility to commit locally, checkpointing, possibility to checkpoint broken code, code review - with git i am simply more productive radovan On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:53:12 +0100, Michael P. Soulier wrote: On 07/03/12 Andrew Gray said: The pushback I am getting is: 1. What does GIT give me that I don't get with SVN - distributed instead of centralized - branches that you can actually merge again - commands that don't involve ridiculously long urls for simple operations - easier forensics when trying to figure out where lost patches went - high performance - it just sucks a lot less 2. It is just another thing I have to learn and why should I when I don't know what benefit I get. losers. Since when is learning not justification in and of itself? Mike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
Re: [git-users] SVN vs GIT
On 07/03/12 Andrew Gray said: > The pushback I am getting is: > 1. What does GIT give me that I don't get with SVN - distributed instead of centralized - branches that you can actually merge again - commands that don't involve ridiculously long urls for simple operations - easier forensics when trying to figure out where lost patches went - high performance - it just sucks a lot less > 2. It is just another thing I have to learn and why should I when I don't > know what benefit I get. losers. Since when is learning not justification in and of itself? Mike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
