On 26 April 2011 12:09, James Dempsey <jdempsey@...
> <Pulls on his old curmudgeon hat>
> I'm not so keen at this stage - primarily from a cost/benefit point of
> view. We are fairly short on volunteer time currently and spending that
> on admin work when there is plenty of development to do seems a waste.
> Currently SVN is serving us well.
> <Pulls off hat>
All very sensible.
> GIT is certainly offered by SourceForge so it could be done. I'd be
> interested in hearing what you think would be the benefit over SVN.
I've used them both. For me, begining to use git was not that difficult,
I found it closely resembled SVN, close enough that the concepts
mapped easily, but I found it more useful. It handles doing mutiple
things much better than SVN. I often find myself with multiple bits of
change going on at the same time in the same build area. I start
something and then find myself in the middle of something else.
Resolving this with cvs or svn is a severe PITA for me, with git it's
really really easy. Maybe you're all disciplined enough that this
doesn't happen to you, but it happens to me.
Creating and merging development lines is easy, much easier than with
svn, IMO (and I think for most people who try it).
Temporarily parking a change to come back to it later, takes seconds
seconds to put it away, seconds to get it back into the current directory.
In the general case I find it easier to work with abnd more powerful than
> PS: Just to clarify Martijn's description then. Once the new UI is in a
> condition to replace the old UI, we would merge the uisync branch back
> into the trunk. This should be largely automatic - we've already done
> the painful manual update getting from cdomui branch to the new uisync
> branch (which started as a branch of trunk just after the release of
If you've already gone through the pain of the main merge, then there
probably wont be any great benefit from moving to git for that.