a git plan, long term

[Cantor, Scott]

On 8/8/13 8:22 PM, "Brent Putman" <putmanb at georgetown.edu> wrote:

>On 8/8/13 7:45 PM, Cantor, Scott wrote:
>>
>> I think Brent derives more value from svn, and so is more negatively
>> impacted than I am.
>
>I suppose currently that's true, since I don't yet use git at all.  It's
>been on my todo list for a while to sit down and learn it.  I'd like to
>do that anyway, regardless of whether and when we switch.

I'm neutral because I don't get sufficient value on my own from either
tool. We need SCM, and so I'll use whatever we choose to use, but
ultimately I have a big sandbox of code and I change it and commit.

>>I guess I just found it messy and chaotic, and couldn't get comfortable
>> with it.
>
>When I took a mini-seminar on git several years ago at OSCON, I did find
>the terminology and concepts of git confusing.

They're simply awful to me, but what I was saying was that I'd be just as
lost with a subversion strategy of lots of branching. It's the constant
branching I don't do well with, not the tool alone. That in turn makes git
a net-lose for me because its main advantages are in that area, and its
commands are impenetrable compared to svn, but I manage with it as long as
I don't push the limits.

I think I would be in general even less likely to delve into the finer
esoterica than I am with subversion, but that's not a major argument for
or against.

-- Scott