[rmk]

I think you are mistaken. We are starting to institute procedures, and the boss is very reasonable. He'll accept a solution in which the workflows are more natural. He has accepted procedures / choices that I have advocated in the past (with well-reasoned arguments in support of my choices, of course).

Arguing that the 'main' repo has to be git is a tough sell, but I think we'll get there eventually, once we show how much easier experimental branching, disconnected operation, distributed nature etc will be advantageous to us.

The git-svn solution is pretty good, because the main repo will be svn, and people who are used to svn (and like the restrictions that come with it) will be happy as well. Git users will also be able to get all the benefits of using it..

[boyter]

I that case I apolagise. It seems you were asking a technical question (which you already knew the answer too) but seemed to phrase it as a policy question.

The other alturnative is to check out using SVN, check that into GIT, do your changes as normal from here and when finished check back into SVN. You only branch and so forth on your local machine but it also ensures you dont break the main repo.