On 07/03/2009 18:57, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
| i can continue with the problems for updating from the main tree compared
| to svn if you like (these are not to prove git is something worse, but
| to discard your claims that git know everything what svn plus something
| more
| - two different tools for two different workflows.)
Sure. I am not saying that the two tools have equal workflow.
I am saying that they can be equivalent, central repo etc. all devvies
push to central repo etc. Svn _only_ has this option, git is more
flexible.
actually i would like to hear why svn repo + git-svn solution is not
good choice.
from the very vegining i'm not trying to degrade git possibilities
but trying to argue for the possibility above. instead of svn vs git
flames i would like you to present drawbacks of svn+git-svn solution
comapred to the git one. up to now only the clone/checkout problem
has been raised and i beleive it can be solved if we look on it.
what else?
The svn-git comparison has been debated to death in a number of forums
and lists. There is no need to rehash the same arguments here. I truly
believe that git (or another distributed scm) is the best way to lower
the barrier to entry for a wannabe developer and that's IMO the most
obvious advantage to switching to it.
If we stay with the same 10 or 20 developers, sure, we can keep using
svn, no problem. But if we want to recruit new developers, git is part
of the solution, really. LyX source code readability has improved
substantially in the last years and we have regular newcomers nowadays;
we should help the trend, not stopping it with things like svn commit
rights, really.
As for the argument of peer revision, that's a social thing, not a
technical one. The LyX developers won't change their habits and
openmindness just because we switch to git.
Abdel.
