On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Carsey, Jaben <jaben.car...@intel.com> wrote: > You really need a third option like "I know how to use SVN and I don’t see > what the ROI on switching is"... > > Or point me to a tutorial and some ROI and I will change and support the > switch.
To avoid an overwhelming (ie, complete) response here, I'll just pick one aspect to respond with for now: Local branches With svn, your tree's state for a file is fairly binary. Either the file is modified compared to the server, or it is not. You can target particular files to checkin to the server, but if you want to check in separate changes within a particular file as separate changes, then it is a real pain. With local branches, you can store your changes in a series that makes sense for code reviews and for committing. Another advantage of local branches is that you can shelve your work on something for a time. Imagine you are working on something, but someone posts a patch that you need to review (or perhaps as package maintainer, commit). With git, you can save off your work and then test out or commit their patch, and then return to your work. In looking at a properly partitioned contribution (for example, see Laszlo or David's recent contributions to OvmfPkg), I simply don't see how dealing with the patch series would be feasible without local branches and git-svn. (git-svn is good here, but due to a few quirks of git-svn, plain git would be better.) See also: http://git-scm.com/about/branching-and-merging -Jordan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
