So far this thread was sleepy. I would like to back to it and discuss git
"flow" we could use.
Currently we have release branches and trunk which is in general big feature
branch. There is no issue branches or separate feature branches for different
things we would like support. This lack of is
+1 for git support, have recently switched on all our internal projects,
really like Git.
--
View this message in context:
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-force-switching-from-SVN-to-GIT-tp5715773p5715860.html
Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 04:47:37 PM Łukasz Dywicki wrote:
> I am not sure if svnmerge is needed with git. With svn all informations
> about previous commits are lost after merge on new branch so it's hard to
> get the commits included in merge commit. With git where you have
> multiple branches y
I am not sure if svnmerge is needed with git. With svn all informations about
previous commits are lost after merge on new branch so it's hard to get the
commits included in merge commit. With git where you have multiple branches you
just use merge without fast forward. In this case issues can b
I'd be +1 for the offline, branching and commit simplicity as well as a easier
merge.
On Jul 9, 2012, at 22:35, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> On Monday, July 09, 2012 09:48:32 PM Christian Müller wrote:
>> I would like to get your opinion about switching from SVN to Git [1].
>> At this point Git suppor
On Monday, July 09, 2012 09:48:32 PM Christian Müller wrote:
> I would like to get your opinion about switching from SVN to Git [1].
> At this point Git support is pretty stable. All projects that's requested
> to be transferred has been switched so far.
>
> What's your preference?
> Should we "fo
