From seth at userprimary.net  Wed May 26 19:14:57 2010
From: seth at userprimary.net (Seth Falcon)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:14:57 -0700
Subject: [Rd] SVN vs DVCS
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikCCxnNw5i-2sBYQ5gv80OBRhrucni3APUBhnDu@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikqeJ_LEosa4ett4bLPO9SD375Lz_lA88Z5sEAX@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimh6KCb-n5Onh1T5EHv60JG0zUoRSBI42uo7f29@mail.gmail.com>
	<19452.60812.190425.523797@lynne.math.ethz.ch>
	<AANLkTikCCxnNw5i-2sBYQ5gv80OBRhrucni3APUBhnDu@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BFD5711.6080003@userprimary.net>

On 5/26/10 4:16 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> Note that one can also use any of the dvcs systems without actually
> moving from svn by using the dvcs (or associated extension/addon) as
> an svn client or by using it on an svn checkout.

FWIW, I have been using git for several years now as my vsc of choice 
and use it for all svn-backed projects (R included) via git-svn.

Some of the things I like:

- Being able to organize changes in local commits that can be revised, 
reordered, rebased prior to publishing.  Once I got in the habit of 
working this way, I simply can't imagine going back.

- Having quick access to full repository history without network 
access/delay.  Features for searching change history are more powerful 
(or easier for me to use) and I have found that useful as well.

- This may not be true any longer with more recent svn servers/clients, 
but aside form the initial repo clone, working via git-svn was 
noticeably faster than straight svn client (!) -- I think related to how 
the tools organize the working copy and how many fstat calls they make.

- I find the log reviewing functionality much better suited to reviewing 
changes.


+ seth

-- 
Seth Falcon | @sfalcon | http://userprimary.net/



[Rd] SVN vs DVCS
Seth Falcon