On 2019-04-17 23:09, Sad Clouds wrote:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:23:43 +0200 Johnny Billquist <bqt%update.uu.se@localhost> wrote:Right. We don't want sane tags or branches, so instead we need to specify full URLs when we want a different version. I'm not saying subversion can't be used. Just that some things annoy me, and in my view are rather bad. I would still take subversion over git any day of the week.Well, you don't need to specify full URL, there are well known shortcuts:
Sorry, I'm still not impressed. Why on earth they didn't do "proper" branches and tags is beyond me, and my biggest issues with subversion. Apart from those, I kindof like subversion.
Nothing too complicated and perfectly reasonable. Git makes sense for people who don't have stable Internet connectivity and they want to be committing locally all day. But then Git is not perfect and has some annoying issues - insane command syntax, convoluted support for binary files, no exclusive file locks, losing history under certain conditions, etc. Have a look at https://svnvsgit.com
Not to mention the crazy dance you sometimes have to do when you want to have a central repository which several others want to sync to, and lots of changes have been made by several persons independent of each other, and you somehow have to resolve.
I've several times had git go totally bonkers, and had to just grab diffs, and then make a new clone and start over. And yes, I also had others take a look, and noone could really figure out how to sort things out. Let's just say that git is very far down on my personal list of which version control system I'd ever pick, when I choose.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt%softjar.se@localhost || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol