Bruce Stephens wrote:
<http://willowbend.cx/2006/06/19/subversion-update-command-considered-harmful/>
I'm not quite sure what it's saying, except that review is important,
and that CVS and subversion don't make it so easy. I'm not sure why
he argues that that makes git better.
What I got from it is "CVS and SVN don't give you control over what
changes you get when you 'update'." Most folks remedy this by working
in their own branch, but he points out (correctly) that CVS and SVN
maintain no internal state for branching, make working in one's own
branch a continual nosebleed. He suggests git is superior because
"update" is such a manual process, allowing you to cherry-pick all your
updates.
I contend that working in your own branch is still better, assuming you
use a reasonable rcs that manages branch state for you.
(Cherry-picking would occasionally be handy too, but I don't think it's
crucial.) git's cherry-pick-all-updates approach sounds tailor-made
for Linux kernel development, but a bit labor-intensive for
conventional development.
larry
|