Re: [Jamwiki-devel] Switch to Git?

[<jam...@li...>]

jam...@li...:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing from others, but as someone who has used
> Git daily for work for about two years, I'm still not convinced that it
> would be superior to Subversion for JAMWiki development.  The developer
> tools for using Git, particularly on Windows, aren't as strong compared
> to Subversion - Tortoise SVN makes Subversion development extremely
> easy.  In addition, my experience has been that it is far easier to make
> mistakes in Git, and far more difficult to track down and undo those
> mistakes - for example, a bad rebase and merge can make tracking down
> changes hugely confusing.  Finally, my experience has been that
> co-workers have found Subversion easier to understand than Git.

* I haven't used Windows for years, but I thought Git on Windows should be fine 
since years now.

 ** Have you seen Github's Git client from yesterday? It's said that even 
Microsoft helped with the development. Microsoft even offers Git on it's own 
hosting plattform Codeplex. - The system invented by Linus! :-)
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/hands-on-github-for-
windows-takes-the-pain-out-of-using-git/

 ** EGit for Eclipse is quite powerful.

* I made the experience that the best way to fall in love with Git, is to 
understand its internal data structure. After that you shouldn't have any more 
problems. There are only four different types of objects: commits, trees, blobs 
and tags. And you must accept that there's no such thing like a global 
revision number as in CVS/SVN.

http://eagain.net/articles/git-for-computer-scientists

 ** I wrote some harsh thoughts about projects not moving to Git some time 
ago. Please excuse the harsh tone, but I think some points might be seen 
valid:
http://www.koch.ro/blog/index.php?/archives/155-Perils-of-not-switching-to-
Git.html

> On the plus side, Git is far superior when it comes to merges and
> branching, and its performance is superior to Subversion, but my
> personal opinion is that neither of those advantages outweigh the
> aforementioned disadvantages.
I think that it's very cumbersome to implement a code review workflow without a 
good support for quick and cheap branches. And code review is often considered 
as one of the most important factors for good code.

> That said, if enough people feel that moving JAMWiki to Git would be a
> preferable solution I wouldn't be opposed, but barring a general
> consensus for such a move then I'd be more comfortable staying on
> Subversion.

Please note that this might be a circular dependency: People that are already 
using Git might be reluctant to join Jamwiki development.

But in the end it's your decision. I can use Git-SVN.

Regards,

Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro