Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by WorkerBee 5965 days ago
They should use git-svn.

using a new version with a few new features of an existing tool (svn) is always an easier sell than using two new tools (git, git-svn) as well, especially when one (git) has a reputation as being very complex, and the other (git-svn) looks like a hack to glue two different systems together.
1 comments
cookiecaper 5965 days ago
Well, the thing about git-svn is no one has to know you're using it. The commits look just like they were submitted by SVN. You don't have to sell git or git-svn to anyone. Everyone can keep using SVN, and you can use git, and there would be no issue or problem here at all.
link
jrockway 5965 days ago
It's more fun to spend your free time copying git-svn's features and implementing them in Subversion. Or something.

Personally, I would find it more useful to sit around and watch paint peel off my wall. But then again, I didn't write a book about why open source projects should have 100-message-long votes on every line of code to be added to the project... so I clearly don't "get it".

link
WorkerBee 5962 days ago
It's more fun to spend your free time copying git-svn's features and implementing them in Subversion. Or something.

For most of us, no. For the SVN team, other forces are at work - I'd say familiarity of the code and desire for their baby to stay relevant are big ones.

link
WorkerBee 5962 days ago
You don't have to sell git or git-svn to anyone.

It has to be sold to me (or your typical departmental svn user). I do spend time learning new tools, but that time is limited, so I'm less likely to spend it on something that has the potential drawbacks that I raised.

FWIW, yes, I am trying out git on the side. That use of time looks worthwhile.

link