Re:Why You Should Switch from Subversion to Git
by jerf on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @01:43PM
(#826368)
"How does git make programmer A want to disentangle the fix?"
Wrong question; the correct question is "Why does SVN make the programmer not want to disentangle the fix?" The answer is that SVN makes it a royal pain in the ass. Not impossible. Nothing is impossible. But it's a royal pain in the ass. Git makes it roughly as hard as it should be; there's a certain amount of essential complexity, but it lowers the accidental complexity to something feasible. (I use Fred Brook's "accidental" vs "essential" complexity terminology from the Mythical Man Month; if you don't know what that is, hie thee hence to amazon and acquire the Mythical Man Month.)
The reason I phrase it this way is that it's really a given that the fix should be disentangled; even SVN proponents will tend to agree with this as a matter of principle. So the question is, why have we all just gotten used to not bothering?
"How does git make merging easier?"
Again, correct question is "How does SVN make merging hard?" and the answer is "in numerous ways". However, in git, it actually works the way it always should have worked. SVN brings way too much accidental complexity to the task of merging, which is evidenced by the way people avoid it like the plague, whereas the exact same people have no problem using git for it.
"It sounds like you're handwaving!" - OK, you didn't say this but I see it coming. The answer is either Google to someone treating this subject more fully (it's not that hard to find), or try it yourself; I see no point in repeating such people's work in a limited HN comment. (Many of them have diagrams and such.) It is not comparable. It is a night-and-day difference unless you are the only person using your SVN repository, and even then git is still nicer.
Wrong question; the correct question is "Why does SVN make the programmer not want to disentangle the fix?" The answer is that SVN makes it a royal pain in the ass. Not impossible. Nothing is impossible. But it's a royal pain in the ass. Git makes it roughly as hard as it should be; there's a certain amount of essential complexity, but it lowers the accidental complexity to something feasible. (I use Fred Brook's "accidental" vs "essential" complexity terminology from the Mythical Man Month; if you don't know what that is, hie thee hence to amazon and acquire the Mythical Man Month.)
The reason I phrase it this way is that it's really a given that the fix should be disentangled; even SVN proponents will tend to agree with this as a matter of principle. So the question is, why have we all just gotten used to not bothering?
"How does git make merging easier?"
Again, correct question is "How does SVN make merging hard?" and the answer is "in numerous ways". However, in git, it actually works the way it always should have worked. SVN brings way too much accidental complexity to the task of merging, which is evidenced by the way people avoid it like the plague, whereas the exact same people have no problem using git for it.
"It sounds like you're handwaving!" - OK, you didn't say this but I see it coming. The answer is either Google to someone treating this subject more fully (it's not that hard to find), or try it yourself; I see no point in repeating such people's work in a limited HN comment. (Many of them have diagrams and such.) It is not comparable. It is a night-and-day difference unless you are the only person using your SVN repository, and even then git is still nicer.