> Frans,
> Git is more popular than hg. And we aren't considering centralized SCM
you already use centralized scm, and IMHO for a reason: there has to
be a central trunk so people who want to pull the latest code which has the
commits of the _team_ is stored centrally.
Local dev might be easier, but you still need to create a central
trunk.
IMHO opting for git over mercurial is stupid as mercurial works
better on windows.
> And yes, there is a HUGE difference between sending a patch and sending a
> pull request.
>
> a) it is significantly easier to handle a pull request, because it is a
> single command, rather than a set of operations
creating a patch with svn is easy too. I always find it funny to
read how svn seems to suck these days while it was the best thing since
sliced bread a couple of years ago. Sourcecontrol isn't rocket science and a
big part of it is management: who does what.
> b) it allows you to have your own fork and easily merge future changes
svn can do that too, but perhaps you simply hate it now so much,
don't know. Just setup a .cmd file with a simple svn command which merges
the trunk with your branch locally. Solve some conflicts (and don't come to
me git solves all conflicts magically, svn 1.5 most of the time has no
conflicts either, or are easy to solve.), commit, done.
and as you need a central trunk anyway, there's 1 person who decides
which patches will be merged into the trunk, so things hardly change there.
Only development locally might change, but is that really a problem today?
IMHO the problem of writing code is far more complex than dealing with some
scm problem, as ALL have problems and sucky things.
> c) it means that Joe can pull from you, not just from the master feed
and when is this an advantage? You're developing a framework, where
potentially a lot of code relies on other code in that same framework, (and
in NH it's even worse, almost all namespaces touch other namespaces directly
or indirectly), so pulling code outside the main trunk to work on IMHO
creates a lot of different 'realities' which are even harder to test than
with a trunk alone.
tl;dr: scm doesn't solve problems which have nothing to do with scm.
FB
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > I actually do have a problem with hg. I think that Git is:
> > a) more popular
>
>
> than what, subversion? Perforce? CVS?
>
>
> > b) GitHub has tremendous pull in terms of encouraging
> contributions.
> > c) I saw a huge spike in the amount of people contributing once I
> moved to
> > github.
>
>
> I have a hard time believing that the scc system used is of
> any
> relevance whether a developer is capable of contributing any code. I
> mean:
> it's not as if someone who changes some code in his own branch is
> suddenly
> able to commit those changes as well: the change has to be reviewed,
> tested,
> agreed upon and then it's committed. A svn patch is just as simple
> for that
> than any other patch.
>
> I don't deny what you saw on ravendb stuff, I just find it a
> 'coincidence' rather than a correlated event.
>
> FB
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Fabio Maulo
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > And move the code in CodePlex...
> >
> >
> > --
> > Fabio Maulo
> >
> >
> > El 02/11/2010, a las 16:38, Jorge <[email protected]>
> escribió:
> >
> >
> > > Hello there,
> > >
> > > I am in the process of downloading the code via SVN, and
it
> is
> > taking
> > > a very long time.
> > >
> > > Can someone please enable Git repo in sourceforge, or
> better yet,
> > move
> > > code to Github?
> > >
> > > Respectfully yours,
> > > Jorge
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
