On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 14:33 -0500, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> * Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> [090112 14:22]:
> > > No. A developer can delete, move and rebase branches in his own
> > > repository as he likes, and all of those operations "modify history". In
> > > fact, a developer can completely destroy or take offline his published
> > > repository. It's *not* an archive.
> >
> > Yes but I have to pull the whole repo to do it is my point. I can't just
> > pull down the 8.3 branch. I have to pull down the whole tree and then
> > work on 8.3.
>
> Not correct. Please, if you're going to say what git "does", please
> make sure it's correct. I'm sure people would scream if I said that the
> SVN forced you checkout out all of /trunk /branches and /tags (i.e. the
> "root" of your SVN repo) into a directory structure simultaneously.
They would fall on deaf ears or perhaps on their own flame thrower if
they did.
>
> With git, you pull down the complete *history* of whatever branch, tag,
> or reference you want to pull down. The *default* "clone" options are
> setup to pull down the history of all available branches and tags, but
> that's not mandatory.
Oh! O.k. glad to hear it. Then I was misinformed and I am glad that I
now know better.
> And to top it off, the history in git is usually *smaller* (takes up
> less space) than the .svn of a SVN checkout...
>
> > SVN on the other hand, if I only want to work on trunk, I can check out
> > trunk and only work (and commit) into trunk.
>
> Accept when your busy waiting for the slow SVN operations to do stuff
> over the network, you can't do anything... Not to mention, merging,
> repeatedly, rebasing,
>
I am not suggesting that we move to SVN you don't have to start a git is
holier than SVN argument.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
