On Wednesday 19 October 2005 17:06, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Daniel Berlin wrote: > >5. Lastly, just to be clear, if you guys don't think the benefits > >outweigh the costs, we don't have to move. > >So far, the amount of dissent i've heard is pretty small, but please, if > >you don't want to move (or you do), please speak up, instead of silently > >suffering (or silently being in joy). > > Thanks Danny for asking. I'm reading the various messages coming to the > list and, well, I'm *worried* the benefits will *not* outweigh the costs > for many of us. > > Sorry for the harsh and naive question: *which* are the benefits for people > *not* managing many branches?
Hmm, let's see. The ones I care about most are: 1) Atomic commits, which make regression hunting a lot easier. You can pinpoint exactly one patch, one revision, as the thing to blame. Right now the regression hunter can from time to time do checkouts from a data+time when someone was just checking in a patch. With SVN, this is not a problem. 2) Ability to rename and move files. Have you ever looked at the messy structure of gcc (i.e. the compiler proper)? And don't you ever have the feeling that some libstdc++ file is in the wrong place, but you don't want to move it because it breaks the revision history? SVN helps here. And less important but still nice: 3) Faster tagging, so you don't have to worry about not checking out something when a gcc snapshot cron job is running
