On 02/08/2012 06:29 PM, Tim Blechmann wrote:
Also, I notice a few other things that in my opinion could be done better to facilitate adoption of the iostreams library. I would be willing to do the work and I would in the perfect position as I am walking in the shoes of an adopter right now - but these are separate from the typo fixes and they are larger issues; considering I can't check my changes in, would I really want to have them sit on my local harddrive, waiting possibly for months for someone upstream to review and hopefully merge them ?
So with git you pushed them to your personal fork. Over time, your fork and the upstream version eventually diverge. You have to maintain your changes. Same thing when the changes lurk on your local svn working.
well, your svn working copy is just a bunch of files, while git's personal branches are part of the repository ... you can merge, rebase, stash, etc ...
Right, you have those. Now what's left is to know when to use what, etc.
with svn your working copy gets easily out of sync ...
svn update is all you need. ever. There are conflicts from time to time. Man up resolve them.
the nice thing of git is that it does not really harm if your branch diverges from upstream, as its merge facilities are much more sophisticated than everything that subversion has to offer ...
I've heard that a couple of times now. My personal experience with git however is quite the contrary. I regularly mess up my local repository.
frankly, since i moved my code into boost's svn, i find it way more fragile to maintain than before
Yes, I used to advertise git too. I had the exact same experience. That goes away. After a while, you won't look back to git, and enjoy "svn up" and "svn commit" and start to question the usefulness of decentralized version control systems for a centralized boost altogether.
tim
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe& other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost