On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:06:31 +0000, David Brodbeck wrote: ... > I suspect this is vi vs. Emacs all over again. People who have gotten used > to the svn user interface (or CVS, for that matter) will find git clumsy; > people who are used to git will find svn clumsy.
Partly, yes. svn has a tendency to define a base mechanism and let that shine through, while git rather takes nonorthogonal shortcuts which look strange but are useful. Example: svn resolve --accept=$whatever is more orthogonal while the older svn resolved is much simpler to use in the common case. Likewise, the complete refusal to acknowledge the existence of tags and branches leads to annoyingly unhelpful commands, like having to tag and branch with 'svn cp' and explicitly naming the t/t/b convention every time, or the need to name an explicit working copy directory name on checkout because 'trunk' is really not a good name usually. This philosopy is there in a lot of places, to the extent that I wonder whether the svn cli was actually intended to be used or just exists as a reference implementation and to drive users into GUI usage. TortoiseSVN does take the second-last path component as the default for the working copy name when the last one is 'trunk', for instance. Andreas -- "Totally trivial. Famous last words." From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
