[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Plans?

From: Adrian Klaver
Subject: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Plans?
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:20:30 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6

On 05/24/2013 01:25 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (rdiff-backup) wrote:
From: Kevin Fenzi [mailto:address@hidden
nearly all the permissions on this project, so I think I should be able to grant that.

Another unrelated thing... currently source is in svn. Git is the new
hotness, perhaps it would be worth seeing how hard it would be to

You're right.  Until a couple weeks ago, it  was under CVS.  And I shyly with a 
slight little gesture of embarassment, converted to svn intentionally instead 
of git.  From a technical standpoint, I do personally think git will be better 
than svn for this project, but my motiviation for selecting svn was thus:

I mentioned I do a lot of IT.  I've deployed many svn and git deployments for 
various companies over the last several years.  Most of the time, you can't 
have a balanced conversation about it; Linus started it, and there exists 
nowadays, a culture of git-over-svn elitism, which is sometimes accurate and 
sometimes not.  The real truth is, each is a tool (neither Linus nor the 
Internet at large are always fair or well-balanced), each has different 
characteristics, and each tool is better for some situations.  In this case, as 
an OSS software project, git is the *ideal* solution.  But we don't have any 
development effort taking place, and as I said, I've deployed and supported a 
lot of svn and git.  Even in software groups full of pro software developers, I 
see this trend over and over:  The learning curve for git is much longer.  If 
you can use git, you can definitely use svn (although you might poo-poo it).  
Svn is way simpler to setup and understand.  So the reason I chose svn for t
his project is to not-inhibit uptake of new developers.

I figured, being forced to learn CVS would legitimately be an obstacle to acquiring new developers.  I 
figured svn will not be an obstacle.  I figured git is a double-edged sword.  As you said, it's "the new 
hotness," (or "hot mess?")  ;-)  but I don't believe running git will *attract* new 
developers.  ("Hey, did you hear, rdiff-backup is being developed on git.  Sounds like a good reason to 
join them...")    heheheh  ;-)      #join-rdiff-backup-on-git

There are still a bunch of people out there who know svn because of work and 
haven't surmounted the obstacle of learning git...  I chose svn to be 
conservative and avoid creating any obstacles for new developers.

Thank you, someone that has not overdosed on the git Koolaid:). Git is a wonderful tool, but it dares you to do bad things, hence the long learning curve.

Adrian Klaver

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]