Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> writes:
| 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.
Oh, I think it is a very good choice.
And I know of very few drawbacks.
- pull push between developes is hard (leads to rebase conflicts)
Also since I find git-svn such a good solution I think there should be
an official git repo that can be used to base a git clone on, and a
cookbook on how to setup this repo for git-svn<->svn interaction.
| 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?
What I really dislike is the creation of flawed examples to make git (or
svn) look bad. Both are good.
--
Lgb
