Le vendredi 2 août 2013 10:08:42 Curtis Rueden a écrit : > True, and it is good to warn about this. However, ultimately I think Git is > a better choice (than SVN) because it often makes code review much easier. I didn't use gerrit nor have seen anybody using it. But I hear about it more and more often as an argument why it makes git better than svn (even if I read that gerrit is a fork of rietveld, which is the same for subversion: but nobody even talks about it, don't know why). Is this pure theory? a dream? a reality for a minority of experts, talking about it loudly but no mere mortal can use it? (intentional provocational tone to motivate people who know to show me the direction to the light :) )
> If a new feature is properly developed on a topic branch with commits > squashed, rewritten and organized as needed, the history can be laid out in > a very easy-to-understand manner: new features and bugfixes done in > properly isolated commits, unit tests added immediately thereafter, etc. yes, with git, you can: with git, so much things can be done. But once again, I didn't see anybody do it, because it's a lot of work. And it requires to be a git black belt. For the moment, just making a rebase before merging a branch seems hard for us mere mortals. > If > a commit is too large or conflates many different changes, Git provides the > tools to split up that work for rereview. > > Again, thanks for writing this. +1 I like it too Regards, Hervé --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
