* 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.
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.
And the benefit of having the whole history of the branch available, is
that you can work on the branch *and history* locally, committing,
inspecting, reviewing, without needing to go back over the net.
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,
etc ;-)
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
