There is no reason that you can't use git as a master repository system--that's how most people treat GitHub anyway.
OTOH if you want to do anything besides the basic commit or update with Subversion, it's ridiculously difficult. Subversion is a SCM tool where people actually prefer to merge manually rather than deal with its conflict handler.
If you must keep with subversion, explicitly authorize the use of git-svn for developers who are using git.
Git use causes smaller incremental commits, which can be squashed into bigger ones for re-merging, but makes for better, more ambitious changes, and easier rollbacks to working code. You get 85% of the benefit by allowing those who can handle it to use git as a subversion client.
I think what the author is trying to say is that by saving a command for 'every action' that you take on git, you can offset the hours and hours of conflicts and manual work you get every time you try to merge a branch into trunk on SVN. Or maybe not.
There are complexities with DVCS that people gloss over focusing only on the positive. My view is that the complexity is rarely worth it for most company settings.
I don't think I created any controversy. The real controversy is whether you should use rebase or not.
My thought was just simplify and subversion might be the right tool for many jobs.
Everyone thinks I'm a fool.
As far as stats, if you really are curious. I received about 1,600 views on the article. Oddly no referrer data from HN, around 300 from Twitter, 150 from Google Reader and 100 from hckrnews.com.
[+] [-] wting|13 years ago|reply
There is no reason that you can't use git as a master repository system--that's how most people treat GitHub anyway.
OTOH if you want to do anything besides the basic commit or update with Subversion, it's ridiculously difficult. Subversion is a SCM tool where people actually prefer to merge manually rather than deal with its conflict handler.
[+] [-] marcuskaz|13 years ago|reply
It will save you a command on every commit, no need to commit and then push.
[+] [-] MetaCosm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] russelluresti|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gte910h|13 years ago|reply
Git use causes smaller incremental commits, which can be squashed into bigger ones for re-merging, but makes for better, more ambitious changes, and easier rollbacks to working code. You get 85% of the benefit by allowing those who can handle it to use git as a subversion client.
[+] [-] k3n|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MetaCosm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dguaraglia|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmsj|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcuskaz|13 years ago|reply
This article explains the complexity well: http://steveko.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/10-things-i-hate-abo...
[+] [-] joshka|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] develop7|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] syncerr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcuskaz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dysinger|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hamburglar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcuskaz|13 years ago|reply
My thought was just simplify and subversion might be the right tool for many jobs.
Everyone thinks I'm a fool.
As far as stats, if you really are curious. I received about 1,600 views on the article. Oddly no referrer data from HN, around 300 from Twitter, 150 from Google Reader and 100 from hckrnews.com.