[svnbook] r4387 committed - Finish issue 65 ("Please talk about the cases where a true DVCS like...
C. Michael Pilato
cmpilato at red-bean.com
Mon Feb 4 09:38:38 CST 2013
On 02/02/2013 04:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> svnbook at googlecode.com wrote on Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 18:39:35 +0000:
>> Revision: 4387
>> Author: cmpilato at gmail.com
>> Date: Fri Feb 1 10:39:22 2013
>> Log: Finish issue 65 ("Please talk about the cases where a true DVCS
>> Git would be better than SVN") to the degree that I plan to do so.
> Overall, LGTM. A couple of suggestions:
>> + of performing that administration yourself. When working with
>> + the data on a daily basis, you won't be able to copy, move,
>> + rename, or delete files the way you usually do. Instead,
> I'd add "add" to the list of file operations.
Hrm, I think "add" doesn't make sense in this context, because when working
outside of version control, there is no "add" action you can take on
files/dirs. And the things we might think of as "adding" -- creating new
files and directories. Well, you really can still do that stuff the same
way even when there's VC involved.
>> + you'll have to do all of those things through the version
>> + control system.</para>
>> + <para>There are pros and cons to each version control approach.
>> + Perhaps the two biggest benefits delivered by the DVCS tools
>> + are incredible performance for day-to-day operations and
>> + vastly better support for merging between branches. The
>> + downside is that distribute version control is an inherently
> Another difference is that Subversion supports mixed-revision wc's and
> DVCS's generally don't. Not as an implementation detail, but due to the
> use-cases it enables ('svn up -r PREV foo.c', for example).
Ah, good point! I'll add that.
>> + more complicated model, which can present a non-negligible
>> + challenge to comfortable collaboration. With centralized
>> + version control, you may find a greater degree of control over
>> + your versioned assets, especially as regards access control.
>> + Fortunately, many wise organizations have discovered that this
>> + needn't be a religious debate, and that Subversion and a DVCS
>> + tool such as Git can be used together harmoniously within the
>> + organization, each serving the purposes best suited to the
> Maybe at least mention the option of having a centralized Subversion
> server with developers using any combination of svn/git-svn/hgsubversion/*
> to work against it?
Ehh... I know what you're getting at, but it feels a step too far into the
advanced user space. Remember, the folks who bother/need to read this
section are probably pretty green when it comes to version control.
More information about the svnbook-dev