RE: svn vs. git

> Subject: RE: svn vs. git > > It’s been awhile, but isn’t changing the commit message (after a push) > potentially problematic in git? > Depends on whether or not you have already pushed. You can do it easily in both cases, but if you have already pushed, you should not do it

Re: svn vs. git

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Andrew Reedick wrote: > It’s been awhile, but isn’t changing the commit message (after a push) > potentially problematic in git? Yeah. It can get nasty. The "push --force" option is available, but that's basically changing the history on what

Re: svn vs. git

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Andreas Krey wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:38:38 +, Nathan Hartman wrote: > ... > > Is that such a big deal? > > The big deal is a slightly different point. Making commit 'offline' > not only allows me to make commits while in the middle of

Re: svn vs. git

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:59:29PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > It even has internal libraries with stable API's that > allow writing plugins and GUI's on top rather than them having to drive a > command line utility. This is something git developers who I know personally *really want*.

Re: svn vs. git

Op 25 jul. 2017 9:48 a.m. schreef "Andreas Krey" : On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:38:38 +, Nathan Hartman wrote: ... > Subversion is a very good system. It doesn't get the credit it deserves, Please. git managed to be faster in providing actually working (i.e. tracked) merges than

Re: svn vs. git

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 08:48:07AM +0200, Andreas Krey wrote: > This also means that I can't maintain a patched version of > svn (or anything in an svn repo) without having commit > privilege to the source repo This is obviously true, and a reason for why the Subversion project itself has a very

Re: svn vs. git

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:38:38 +, Nathan Hartman wrote: ... > One myth that is not mentioned on that page is the famous, "But you can't > work offline!" Being able to work "offline" is supposed to be the biggest > selling point of a DVCS over a CVCS. Okay... I'm calling that a myth. First > of

Re: svn vs. git

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > Circling back to the original point. Local commits for Subversion, > effectively transforming it to a DVCS or distributed version control > system, could be very cool. You really should head over to dev@ and provide

Re: svn vs. git

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 23.07.2017 07:54, Nathan Hartman wrote: >> On Jul 22, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: I can glance at it if I can find some cycles, no promises. I'm leery: >>> much of Subversion's

Re: svn vs. git

On 23.07.2017 07:54, Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Jul 22, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >>> I can glance at it if I can find some cycles, no promises. I'm leery: >> much of Subversion's support that I've seen, and that I've sold >> Subversion migration work with

Re: svn vs. git

On Jul 22, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> I can glance at it if I can find some cycles, no promises. I'm leery: > much of Subversion's support that I've seen, and that I've sold > Subversion migration work with myself, is that the singular repository > can be

Re: svn vs. git

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > Yeah, well, we know the lack of 'obliterate' is one of your favourite > complaints about svn. I am not bothered by it at all, and so are many other > svn users. But okay. > > You do realise git repositories get cloned,

Re: svn vs. git

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:45:05AM -0700, Xin LI wrote: > Hi, Stefan, > > Thanks for your feedback! Please see my response inline. > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 08:01:55PM -0700, Xin LI wrote: > > The FreeBSD repository

Re: svn vs. git

> > > > As Branko already said, work is being done for this, as we speak. So if > you're interested and want to share your ideas about how this should work > in Subversion, hop over to dev@ and give your thoughts. There are some > google docs written by Julian Foad with design ideas, UI proposal

Re: svn vs. git

Op 22 jul. 2017 03:00 schreef "Nico Kadel-Garcia" : On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: >> >> Not wanting to start a flame war, but for all svn users and

Re: svn vs. git

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: >> >> Not wanting to start a flame war, but for all svn users and admins out >> there that sometimes need to have this conversation ... I

Re: svn vs. git

Hi, Stefan, Thanks for your feedback! Please see my response inline. On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 08:01:55PM -0700, Xin LI wrote: > The FreeBSD repository is one of the best real world data sets available > to Subversion

Re: svn vs. git

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 08:01:55PM -0700, Xin LI wrote: > Since the article mentioned FreeBSD (I'm a FreeBSD developer, and I > use both git and subversion everyday), I think I need to point out > that the author have missed some important pain points. > > My biggest pain point with subversion is

Re: svn vs. git

On 21.07.2017 00:01, Scott Aron Bloom wrote: > > I was forced by a third party company to work with them on a github > based project. Boy was it painful… But I must say, one thing I did > *LIKE * was the “offline” mode, of commit vs push. > > > > To me, it would be interesting and a very nice

Re: svn vs. git

Since the article mentioned FreeBSD (I'm a FreeBSD developer, and I use both git and subversion everyday), I think I need to point out that the author have missed some important pain points. My biggest pain point with subversion is that 'svn up', 'svn st' and 'svn diff' take much longer time

Re: svn vs. git

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: >> >> Not wanting to start a flame war, but for all svn users and admins out >> there that sometimes need to have this conversation ... I

Re: svn vs. git

> > Code review is the main one, but this is driven by github.com more than > git itself, I guess. > That was the game changer wasn't it. Github's platform had built in code-review with the pull request

Re: svn vs. git

gt; *To:* Subversion <users@subversion.apache.org> > *Subject:* Re: svn vs. git > > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Not wanting to start a flame war, but for all svn users and admins out > there that sometimes n

RE: svn vs. git

From: Nathan Hartman [mailto:hartman.nat...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 14:39 To: Subversion <users@subversion.apache.org> Subject: Re: svn vs. git On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com<mailto:jcor...@gmail.com>> wrote: Not wantin