Ken Moffat wrote: > 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 :-)
I agree. They want you to make the branch directly in the remote repository and you need to remember the syntax for that. Ugly. Later I developed the above technique for creating a branch. It's not as elegant as git branches, but it's not as ugly as the SVN book. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
