On Mar 10, 2012, at 9:55 PM, Kalle Vahlman wrote: > 2012/3/11 Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com>: >> >> The interaction with the version-control system for each of these steps is >> an obvious single step with SVN. With git, for at least some of these, you >> will end up needing multiple non-obvious (to an SVN user anyway) commands. > > I understand the context of this argument and it is of course valid > but it gets REALLY boring to hear this every time someone tries to > make a point :) > > I've used svn long time ago and git ever since. For me it's no longer > obvious that my local changes are not "safe" from merging if I do an > update. It is also not obvious that I could not simply commit my patch > (locally) and continue on to the next one when the changes are > touching the same files etc. > > The 'obvious' argument should IMO be avoided at all times, because it > inherently carries the notion that the svn way is somehow the de facto > way of doing things in everybody's minds. It is not. It is always > subjective what workflow makes sense.
I think we largely agree here. Some people find the SVN workflow subjectively makes sense to them. Others find that the Git workflow subjectively makes sense to them. They are different enough that not everyone finds it natural to switch. Conveniently, we support both. Regards, Maciej _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
