Dr. Trigon
<dr.trigon(a)surfeu.ch> wrote:
What is all the hype about git...? SVN has far enough options (may be
too much ;) for me...
On 02.02.2012 23:42, Merlijn van Deen wrote:
As far as I am concerned - I'd like to stick
with SVN for as long
as possible. Even though I *really* like git, we don't gain much
by switching. We don't really have the problems with code review
mediawiki has, simply because we have much less code committed.
However, if wikimedia takes down
svn.wikimedia.org
<http://svn.wikimedia.org> at a certain point, we might as well
consider switching to a different version control system -
essentially the same as what we did when we dropped
sf.net
<http://sf.net> for
svn.wikimedia.org <http://svn.wikimedia.org>.
To be honest I am not familiar with git thus I would like to give a
vote here:
+ 1 (for: "I'd like to stick with SVN for as long as possible")
I like using distributed VCS's (mostly mercurial, recently got interested
in fossil, a very nice alternative to git/mercurial/sourceforge)
and I would like to use one for pywikipedia, but...
git disadvantages are well-known, one of the #1 reasons is it's
user unfriendliness.
git raises a bar too much for casual development. It is difficult
to use by just remembering some commands - you need to understand
some concepts behind not to make mistakes. Even though I am committer
in at least one project using git I still have to learn and re-learn
every time I use it (I am not using it daily).
So it depends on the audience - I can see that most of the committers
here are quite advanced developers which are probably able
to cope with any version control system around. But maybe something
simpler than git (like svn) may be better for newcomers.
//Saper