News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Confusing Git Terminology by regularjack on Thursday November 02, 2023 @04:36PM (#38119777)
Git won because it's better than Subversion, and because of GitHub.
Re:Confusing Git Terminology by iamcreasy on Thursday November 02, 2023 @07:10PM (#38121733)
I think the parent comment is trying to say that not all project requires feature rich tool like Git. I also suspect for many many project subversion is good enough.
Re:Confusing Git Terminology by mangodrunk on Thursday November 02, 2023 @09:40PM (#38123279)
How is git better than svn?
Re:Confusing Git Terminology by Ygg2 on Thursday November 02, 2023 @10:11PM (#38123530)
You don't need to lock tree to deal with merges, you can edit your own commits (e.g. scrub someone due to GDPR from history), works offline, relatively fast.
Re:Confusing Git Terminology by metabagel on Thursday November 02, 2023 @10:22PM (#38123608)
The trade off is complexity. Subversion was very easy to use. You could work around it’s limitations, if your project wasn’t the Linux kernel.
Re:Confusing Git Terminology by Kranar on Thursday November 02, 2023 @10:21PM (#38123601)
Just being able to create a local branch, experiment with some changes and then either scrap the whole thing or merge them back is a big productivity boost. I feel like with SVN making a branch was like a "big deal" and something you had to think about, whereas in git making a branch is cheap and just part of a normal work flow.
Re:Confusing Git Terminology by mangodrunk on Thursday November 02, 2023 @11:20PM (#38124059)
Making an svn branch is not a big deal and you can certainly create a branch in svn and scrap it. It seems that the git hype of 10 or so years ago was very effective.
Re:Confusing Git Terminology by Kranar on Thursday November 02, 2023 @11:42PM (#38124223)
It's true that it's been a decade since I used SVN so I could be misremebering, I just remember branching and merging being a much larger pain than in git.
Re:Confusing Git Terminology by Izkata on Friday November 03, 2023 @12:10AM (#38124408)
Branches were made by copying the directory tree, and svn doesn't have local commits so it always went straight to the server.

I think svn also originally didn't have merging, or at the very least it was such a bad experience svnmerge.py was created and really common to use. Even once it got good it was mostly the equivalent of using git cherry-pick to pull commits across branches, though it did get a special "reintegrate" mode for diffing a branch and applying that back to trunk (and I remember there being something about it being possible to accidentally undo commits if you weren't fully up to date when running it...?)

Re:Confusing Git Terminology by mangodrunk on Friday November 03, 2023 @12:00AM (#38124343)
I know what you mean, when git was gaining popularity I do remember people saying that branching being better/easier in git. I do think it was overstated back then and just not true. I haven’t used svn in years as well, but I think it was mostly due to the hype than any objective merit.
Re:Confusing Git Terminology by ynik on Friday November 03, 2023 @04:42AM (#38126035)
Making an svn branch and scrapping it, indeed never was a big deal.

Making an svn branch and merging it, now that was a huge issue. "svn merge" sucked compared to "git merge".

For the project I was managing back in 2007 I started using git-svn, because importing Subversion commits into git, using "git merge", and then exporting commits back to the subversion server, was faster and worked better than "svn merge" did (back in 2007).