On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:06:42PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > The great benefit of git is in branches - in svn, a branch is "cast > > in stone" and is a PITA. In git, branches are just pointers. If > > you want to maintain a stable branch, you can cherry-pick specific > > commits from another branch (such as master). To do that on LFS or > > BLFS, I suspect that things might work better if date changes > > in general.ent were separated from other changes - I think CLFS has > > usually done that. There have been at least two occasions in the > > past when I've thought about branching BLFS, but in svn it didn't > > seem worth the pain. > > cd ~/BLFS/trunk/BOOK > cd ../../branches > svn cp ../trunk/BOOK my-new-branch > #edit as required > svn commit -m "Added new branch.." > > Well maybe you can do that in git in one line, but how often is that > needed? The only time I need that is to do a release. > My impression, from looking at the Red Book when I first thought about this, is that maintaining branches in svn is _hard_. Perhaps I'm wrong, but with svn I've seen nothing to suggest that branching is trivial.
With git, multiple branches are definitely trivial. The result, from my POV, is that in svn people avoid branches unless they _have_ to use them, whereas in git they are no big deal. You have used an svn branch for a relase, but I'm not willing to set up an svn branch _unless_ I'm intending to use it to make a release. Perhaps svn branches are easier than the Red Book implies - if so, they ought to fix their docs :-) ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
