monotone-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Monotone-devel] Subversion Update Command Considered Harmful


From: Larry Hastings
Subject: Re: [Monotone-devel] Subversion Update Command Considered Harmful
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:38:20 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)

Bruce Stephens wrote:
<http://willowbend.cx/2006/06/19/subversion-update-command-considered-harmful/>
I'm not quite sure what it's saying, except that review is important,
and that CVS and subversion don't make it so easy.  I'm not sure why
he argues that that makes git better.

What I got from it is "CVS and SVN don't give you control over what changes you get when you 'update'."  Most folks remedy this by working in their own branch, but he points out (correctly) that CVS and SVN maintain no internal state for branching, make working in one's own branch a continual nosebleed.  He suggests git is superior because "update" is such a manual process, allowing you to cherry-pick all your updates.

I contend that working in your own branch is still better, assuming you use a reasonable rcs that manages branch state for you.  (Cherry-picking would occasionally be handy too, but I don't think it's crucial.)  git's cherry-pick-all-updates approach sounds tailor-made for Linux kernel development, but a bit labor-intensive for conventional development.


larry

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]