<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/29/2015 04:16 PM, Dmitry Igrishin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP+w2GpDHV4cPbLz+Pr5M2fBVEQ1CkUJ1k0DuvmXqk5uVD0c-A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2015-11-30 0:42 GMT+03:00 R. Matthew
Emerson <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rme@clozure.com" target="_blank">rme@clozure.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Nov 29, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Dmitry
Igrishin <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dfigrish@gmail.com"
target="_blank">dfigrish@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Dear developers,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Whether time came to migrate to Git?
Are there are any such intentions, or your
are comfortable with SVN and it is not a
subject</div>
<div>for discussion?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>Speaking for myself only, it's just not clear that
a switch would be beneficial. It seems like it would
just be following a fashion trend. But maybe I'm
stupid and ugly. (cf. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://youtu.be/4XpnKHJAok8?t=487"
target="_blank">https://youtu.be/4XpnKHJAok8?t=487</a>)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We've been using Trac for tickets, and that works
well with Subversion. Subversion deals reasonably
well with largish binary files (like bootstrapping
heap images). Our (ab)use of externals also gives us
a way for users to get a working installation with a
single command.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>I agree that git is very popular, and I know that
many people find that github alone is a reason to
use git. But I like to host my own stuff, and I
just can't see how a switch would improve the life
of ccl hackers all that much. Maybe I haven't yet
seen the light.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-size:14.4px">Because the Git is very
popular this may be one of the factors to make it easer to
work</div>
<div style="font-size:14.4px">with code for hackers who
forget SVN. (Like me :).)</div>
<div style="font-size:14.4px">The one of the main Git
advantages is a great support for real branching which is
very helpful.</div>
<div><span style="font-size:14.4px">After all, Git is fast
and pleasent to work with.</span> <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't use git often enough to be familiar with it, and (largely
as a result of that ignorance)<br>
I find git to be slow and unpleasant to use ...<br>
<br>
I agree with the observation that it is often too much of a big
production to create a branch<br>
in svn, and a "local, private branch" isn't even a meaningful
concept in a centralized system<br>
like svn.<br>
<br>
svn externals address what they try to address fairly well, but have
always seemed like<br>
an afterthought and their use -as we use them- seems to introduce
its own set of problems.<br>
As far as I know and from what other people who have tried to use
them have said, git's<br>
submodules have similar issues.<br>
<br>
At one point. it seemed desirable to offer a simple way of getting
sources and platform-<br>
specific binaries; I'm not sure that there is a compelling reason
not to package things<br>
into a single distribution anymore, even if that meant getting
binaries that one didn't<br>
need and probably couldn't run. At the very least, I'm not sure that
the reasons for<br>
using svn externals (or git submodules) are as compelling as they
once seemed.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>