On 25 May 2012 00:05, Dirkjan Ochtman <d...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> In that regard, git is nothing like for instance svn, where branches come >> at a much higher cost, as does merging between them. > > That's wrong. SVN branches are just about as cheap as git branches, > although merges used to be much more painful. I'm not sure how good > merging in recent SVN is.
Cheapness ... maybe in binary disk utilization ( need an actual comparison here I think ), but in cognitive overheads, I'd argue git's branching system is definitely cheaper. Going from Git back to SVN, the mentality of "copy a directory and you have a new branch!!!" seems a bit crazy. And switching between branches in-place at a fixed disk location is definitely cheaper ( mentally at least ) than SVN. I hope I never have to use svn switch again :/ -- Kent perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz
