Here's my take on Git vs SVN All VCS systems are an extra layer of hassle. Once I learn enough about them to do the job, I'm happy to forget about them. I'm mostly happy with SVN. I only commit/update occasionally. Most of my time on boost is spent testing on my own machine with windows VC and gcc. I love the windows interface - it's great for someone with my attitude about this. I hate the merging process - it's slow and cumbersome and wastes a lot of my time - when I do it which is only once every three months. So - I don't really have strong feelings about this topic and I'm happy to go along with what ever is decided. I'm just hoping that those who make the decision take into account those of use who are VCS luddites. Robert Ramey
<worst analogy ever> The way I look at it -- it's kind of like having some friends who want the latest iPhone. You don't really care about getting an iPhone, your old phone makes phone calls and you're used to it. You have other more pressing concerns. Except, this friend really wants the iPhone, but it just so happens that the only way he can get it is if you and all your friends go to the store with him and also buy iPhones. The key to this analogy is the cost associated with migrating to git is applied to all those people who don't really want an iPhone =) .. it's easy to underestimate that cost, but every single active developer will have a loss of time and productivity on account of a migration like this, and the resulting benefits of the migration are of debatable importance. </worst analogy ever> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Here's my take on Git vs SVN
All VCS systems are an extra layer of hassle. Once I learn enough about them to do the job, I'm happy to forget about them.
I'm mostly happy with SVN. I only commit/update occasionally. Most of my time on boost is spent testing on my own machine with windows VC and gcc.
I love the windows interface - it's great for someone with my attitude about this.
I hate the merging process - it's slow and cumbersome and wastes a lot of my time - when I do it which is only once every three months.
So - I don't really have strong feelings about this topic and I'm happy to go along with what ever is decided. I'm just hoping that those who make the decision take into account those of use who are VCS luddites.
Robert Ramey
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Sigh... it's poor analogies like this that lead to bad decision making! What's really going on is that a version control system is a series of tubes. The problem with SVN is that the tubes are thinner than the Git tubes which means that they are much more likely to get clogged, which causes patches to get dropped. What holds people up from upgrading is that if any individual upgrades the tube that connects to their home from SVN to Git then they see no benefits because they are still limited by the narrow capacity of the rest of the system. This is why we need everyone to upgrade all at once so we can get the full capacity of Git and thus be able to dump entire truckloads of patches into the system without clogging it! Cheers, Greg On 1/31/11 9:58 AM, caustik wrote:
<worst analogy ever>
The way I look at it -- it's kind of like having some friends who want the latest iPhone. You don't really care about getting an iPhone, your old phone makes phone calls and you're used to it. You have other more pressing concerns. Except, this friend really wants the iPhone, but it just so happens that the only way he can get it is if you and all your friends go to the store with him and also buy iPhones. The key to this analogy is the cost associated with migrating to git is applied to all those people who don't really want an iPhone =) .. it's easy to underestimate that cost, but every single active developer will have a loss of time and productivity on account of a migration like this, and the resulting benefits of the migration are of debatable importance.
</worst analogy ever>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Robert Ramey<ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Here's my take on Git vs SVN
All VCS systems are an extra layer of hassle. Once I learn enough about them to do the job, I'm happy to forget about them.
I'm mostly happy with SVN. I only commit/update occasionally. Most of my time on boost is spent testing on my own machine with windows VC and gcc.
I love the windows interface - it's great for someone with my attitude about this.
I hate the merging process - it's slow and cumbersome and wastes a lot of my time - when I do it which is only once every three months.
So - I don't really have strong feelings about this topic and I'm happy to go along with what ever is decided. I'm just hoping that those who make the decision take into account those of use who are VCS luddites.
Robert Ramey
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe& other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe& other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
At Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:36:22 -0800, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
Sigh... it's poor analogies like this that lead to bad decision making!
What's really going on is that a version control system is a series of tubes.
Wow, I honestly never expected to see Uncle Ted quoted on the Boost mailing list! My hat's off to you, sir. http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/10/a-series-of-tubes/ -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Dave Abrahams wrote:
At Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:36:22 -0800, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
Sigh... it's poor analogies like this that lead to bad decision making!
What's really going on is that a version control system is a series of tubes.
Wow, I honestly never expected to see Uncle Ted quoted on the Boost mailing list! My hat's off to you, sir.
It's stuff like this that I love about this list. Robert Ramey
The question is not "is GIT better than SVN?" The question is "is GIT so much better than SVN that the gains post-migration far exceed the costs associated with ramping up developers to the new setup + the amount of time to actually execute on the migration" To be clear - I couldn't care less about which way it goes, I just chimed in because I could emphasize with the people who just can't be bothered to deal with changing revision control system, and thought the analogy conveyed that perspective. From what I've heard, git is pretty legit, but I'm a late adopter and prefer the comfort of familiarity over always hopping onto the latest thing before it's really matured. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Gregory Crosswhite < gcross@phys.washington.edu> wrote:
Sigh... it's poor analogies like this that lead to bad decision making!
What's really going on is that a version control system is a series of tubes. The problem with SVN is that the tubes are thinner than the Git tubes which means that they are much more likely to get clogged, which causes patches to get dropped. What holds people up from upgrading is that if any individual upgrades the tube that connects to their home from SVN to Git then they see no benefits because they are still limited by the narrow capacity of the rest of the system. This is why we need everyone to upgrade all at once so we can get the full capacity of Git and thus be able to dump entire truckloads of patches into the system without clogging it!
Cheers, Greg
On 1/31/11 9:58 AM, caustik wrote:
<worst analogy ever>
The way I look at it -- it's kind of like having some friends who want the latest iPhone. You don't really care about getting an iPhone, your old phone makes phone calls and you're used to it. You have other more pressing concerns. Except, this friend really wants the iPhone, but it just so happens that the only way he can get it is if you and all your friends go to the store with him and also buy iPhones. The key to this analogy is the cost associated with migrating to git is applied to all those people who don't really want an iPhone =) .. it's easy to underestimate that cost, but every single active developer will have a loss of time and productivity on account of a migration like this, and the resulting benefits of the migration are of debatable importance.
</worst analogy ever>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Robert Ramey<ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Here's my take on Git vs SVN
All VCS systems are an extra layer of hassle. Once I learn enough about them to do the job, I'm happy to forget about them.
I'm mostly happy with SVN. I only commit/update occasionally. Most of my time on boost is spent testing on my own machine with windows VC and gcc.
I love the windows interface - it's great for someone with my attitude about this.
I hate the merging process - it's slow and cumbersome and wastes a lot of my time - when I do it which is only once every three months.
So - I don't really have strong feelings about this topic and I'm happy to go along with what ever is decided. I'm just hoping that those who make the decision take into account those of use who are VCS luddites.
Robert Ramey
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe& other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe& other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On 1/31/2011 1:36 PM, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
Sigh... it's poor analogies like this that lead to bad decision making!
What's really going on is that a version control system is a series of tubes. The problem with SVN is that the tubes are thinner than the Git tubes which means that they are much more likely to get clogged, which causes patches to get dropped.
It is poor rhetoric like this which really leads to bad decision making. SVN versus Git has nothing to do with patches being dropped. If the person responsible for applying patches is not doing it, patches will not be applied no matter what is being used. Ditto if there is no person responsible for doing it. if you feel Git is the solution because everybody then has the right to apply changes to Boost whenever they like, I think you are dreaming.
On 1/31/2011 2:42 PM, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
On 1/31/11 11:33 AM, Edward Diener wrote:
It is poor rhetoric like this which really leads to bad decision making.
Hey, if that rhetoric was good enough for a widely esteemed Senator then it is good enough for the boost mailing list. :-)
Any rhetoric is good enough for politicians. I was hoping Boost developers and users would be a cut above that. Vain hope I guess. Nonetheless those people who are actually trying to speak about Git without false effusion should really keep their remarks consistent with some known reality.
Here is my take: SVN will die for any kind of new development and that young man Linus has truly created something genius in Git. My doubts about his geniality were partly wrong. Git has actually changed development behavior in my teams more than I expected for a VCS. To the better, I might add. Boost will inevitably move to Git, it just a matter of timing. Is this a particularly bad time? I will keep this post for the records, and am accepting wagers :-) Typed on an iPhone On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:58 PM, caustik <caustik@gmail.com> wrote:
<worst analogy ever>
The way I look at it -- it's kind of like having some friends who want the latest iPhone. You don't really care about getting an iPhone, your old phone makes phone calls and you're used to it. You have other more pressing concerns. Except, this friend really wants the iPhone, but it just so happens that the only way he can get it is if you and all your friends go to the store with him and also buy iPhones. The key to this analogy is the cost associated with migrating to git is applied to all those people who don't really want an iPhone =) .. it's easy to underestimate that cost, but every single active developer will have a loss of time and productivity on account of a migration like this, and the resulting benefits of the migration are of debatable importance.
</worst analogy ever>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Here's my take on Git vs SVN
All VCS systems are an extra layer of hassle. Once I learn enough about them to do the job, I'm happy to forget about them.
I'm mostly happy with SVN. I only commit/update occasionally. Most of my time on boost is spent testing on my own machine with windows VC and gcc.
I love the windows interface - it's great for someone with my attitude about this.
I hate the merging process - it's slow and cumbersome and wastes a lot of my time - when I do it which is only once every three months.
So - I don't really have strong feelings about this topic and I'm happy to go along with what ever is decided. I'm just hoping that those who make the decision take into account those of use who are VCS luddites.
Robert Ramey
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
participants (6)
-
caustik -
Dave Abrahams -
David Bergman -
Edward Diener -
Gregory Crosswhite -
Robert Ramey