svk v git + possible gig

[muppet]

On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:48 PM, Tomas Doran wrote:

>
> On 8 Sep 2008, at 17:59, Paul Makepeace wrote:
>
>> Anyway, so has anyone moved from svk to git? Any thoughts on the  
>> experience?
>
> Disclaimer - I haven't, I'm still using svk...
>
> However - I've seen a number of people curse git-svn.. The  
> impression I get is that git is probably the bee's knees if you only  
> want to talk to other people using git, however, if you want to  
> import a remote subversion repository and push back non-trivial  
> changes then it doesn't work so good.

I do this many times a day, with a couple of rather huge svn  
repositories, and can vouch that git's branching has completely  
changed the way i work.  It is completely teh r0x0rz.  Offline history  
for the win.  Rapid commits and interactive rebase for the fatality.

The main issue with using git-svn is that you can't push git merges in  
a meaningful way, so you wind up using rebase to make your work look  
like it was linearly done atop the original.  That's conceptually no  
different from doing an "svn update" before committing, except that  
your patch set stays intact as several patches.

But that's just to say that while git alone really is the bee's knees,  
using it with svn isn't as bad as you might hear.  I have not used  
svk, but was big on svn when it was new and shiny and better than cvs,  
before all its warts became apparent.

--
I hate to break it to you, but magic data pixies don't exist.
   -- Simon Cozens