Comments on: Git forking for fun and profit http://labnotes.org/2008/04/30/git-forking-for-fun-and-profit/ Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:36:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: How git can help Eclipse. at Lunar Ocean http://labnotes.org/2008/04/30/git-forking-for-fun-and-profit/comment-page-1/#comment-141445 How git can help Eclipse. at Lunar Ocean Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:25:47 +0000 http://blog.labnotes.org/?p=1046#comment-141445 [...] blog post is more or less a copy paste of the investigation and formulation work Assaf did for [...] [...] blog post is more or less a copy paste of the investigation and formulation work Assaf did for [...]

]]> By: Labnotes » Open Development and the Flow of Spice http://labnotes.org/2008/04/30/git-forking-for-fun-and-profit/comment-page-1/#comment-141103 Labnotes » Open Development and the Flow of Spice Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:50:48 +0000 http://blog.labnotes.org/?p=1046#comment-141103 [...] Think of the way we use Git, not the design of it, but the development practices it promotes. It enables independent development and promotes experiments. There’s less friction and less communication required: if you need [...] [...] Think of the way we use Git, not the design of it, but the development practices it promotes. It enables independent development and promotes experiments. There’s less friction and less communication required: if you need [...]

]]> By: Git Isn’t Social « Dead Ink Vinyl http://labnotes.org/2008/04/30/git-forking-for-fun-and-profit/comment-page-1/#comment-140764 Git Isn’t Social « Dead Ink Vinyl Sun, 06 Jul 2008 04:52:53 +0000 http://blog.labnotes.org/?p=1046#comment-140764 [...] continue to be astounded that the community believes Git to be more social than centralized VCS like Subversion. I guess the notion is that Git makes the following scenario [...] [...] continue to be astounded that the community believes Git to be more social than centralized VCS like Subversion. I guess the notion is that Git makes the following scenario [...]

]]> By: Assaf http://labnotes.org/2008/04/30/git-forking-for-fun-and-profit/comment-page-1/#comment-140469 Assaf Tue, 06 May 2008 23:18:59 +0000 http://blog.labnotes.org/?p=1046#comment-140469 Cristi, thanks, that's even better than my tip. Cristi, thanks, that’s even better than my tip.

]]> By: Cristi Balan http://labnotes.org/2008/04/30/git-forking-for-fun-and-profit/comment-page-1/#comment-140464 Cristi Balan Mon, 05 May 2008 18:29:35 +0000 http://blog.labnotes.org/?p=1046#comment-140464 Actually, Last Changed Rev is not that great. The revision it gives you doesn't work with git-svn if the last change on the path you're asking for is the result of a copy. Check out this commit for a solution that works: http://github.com/evilchelu/braid/commit/6e21617a196666ca726cf16d3257bb7aa0e7df0a Actually, Last Changed Rev is not that great. The revision it gives you doesn’t work with git-svn if the last change on the path you’re asking for is the result of a copy.

Check out this commit for a solution that works:

http://github.com/evilchelu/braid/commit/6e21617a196666ca726cf16d3257bb7aa0e7df0a

]]> By: Assaf http://labnotes.org/2008/04/30/git-forking-for-fun-and-profit/comment-page-1/#comment-140442 Assaf Fri, 02 May 2008 02:26:08 +0000 http://blog.labnotes.org/?p=1046#comment-140442 True. I never actually took the time to figure out why Git is better, because ... well, it just works. True. I never actually took the time to figure out why Git is better, because … well, it just works.

]]> By: Aristotle http://labnotes.org/2008/04/30/git-forking-for-fun-and-profit/comment-page-1/#comment-140437 Aristotle Thu, 01 May 2008 15:04:03 +0000 http://blog.labnotes.org/?p=1046#comment-140437 <blockquote>Yes, SVN had branches since forever. Not the same thing.</blockquote> But you don’t say <em>why</em> it’s not the same thing, and that’s what’s key. The why is that Subversion improved on CVS for the irrelevant part of the process: making it easy to <em>create</em> a branch. However, it does nothing to help you with the <em>interesting</em> (and time-consuming) side of the process: merging back two or more branches into one, eg. swallowing a feature branch into trunk. It doesn’t even keep track of which changes have already been pulled into a branch during intermittent merges you may have done to reduce the number of conflicts. A DVCS, OTOH, does as much of the merge automatically as possible. (Some, like Codeville, try to be overly clever, trying to resolve conflicts even in ambiguous situations; git doesn’t, which is one of the reason that its tag line is “the stupid content tracker.”) Automatic merging is the bedrock that supports cheap branching, which is the foundation of DVCSs.

Yes, SVN had branches since forever. Not the same thing.

But you don’t say why it’s not the same thing, and that’s what’s key. The why is that Subversion improved on CVS for the irrelevant part of the process: making it easy to create a branch. However, it does nothing to help you with the interesting (and time-consuming) side of the process: merging back two or more branches into one, eg. swallowing a feature branch into trunk. It doesn’t even keep track of which changes have already been pulled into a branch during intermittent merges you may have done to reduce the number of conflicts. A DVCS, OTOH, does as much of the merge automatically as possible. (Some, like Codeville, try to be overly clever, trying to resolve conflicts even in ambiguous situations; git doesn’t, which is one of the reason that its tag line is “the stupid content tracker.”) Automatic merging is the bedrock that supports cheap branching, which is the foundation of DVCSs.

]]>