pcmattman wrote:Code: Select all
wget http://subversion.tigris.org/downloads/subversion-1.6.2.tar.gz tar -xzf subversion-1.6.2.tar.gz cd subversion-1.6.2 ./configure make sudo make install
Code: Select all
cd /usr/ports/devel/subversion
make install clean
Oh yeah? Oh yeah?pcmattman wrote:Code: Select all
wget http://subversion.tigris.org/downloads/subversion-1.6.2.tar.gz tar -xzf subversion-1.6.2.tar.gz cd subversion-1.6.2 ./configure make sudo make install
Code: Select all
$ emerge --pretend --verbose subversion
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild R ] dev-util/subversion-1.5.5 USE="apache2 berkdb dso java nls perl python sasl vim-syntax webdav-neon -bash-completion -debug -doc -emacs -extras -ruby -webdav-serf" 4,825 kB
Total: 1 package (1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 4,825 kBCode: Select all
$ sudo echo "dev-util/subversion doc ruby" >> /etc/portage/package.use && emerge subversion
)Hey, I giggled. Whatever.Brynet-Inc wrote:Hey you attempted humour! good for you!
Oh, there are several reasons, IMHO. Complexity, quality of documentation, attitude of lead programmer.steveklabnik wrote:Besides, unless you're not the one calling the shots, there's absolutely no reason to keep using a non-distributed SCM system. Use hg, darcs, bzr, whatever you want... but svn?
Unsubstantiated. As long as you're not an idiot, git is not difficult.Solar wrote:Complexity
svn wrote: svn co svn+ssh://path/to/your/repo .
*edit files*
svn commit -m "message, lol"
svn up
Yes. Much harder.git wrote: git clone git://path/to/your/repo
*edit files*
git commit -a -m "message, lol"
git pull
I have never had a problem with this, ever. Maybe this was true in the past, but today? Hardly.quality of documentation
I evaluate the software that I use by its technical merits, not by who wrote it or how much I like them. (By the way, that talk is actually what convinced me to actually learn more about git and how it works, and got me started with git in general. Guess we have slightly different perspectives on things, huh?)attitude of lead programmer
We agree!Git and its ilk are perfect for huge, massive-concurrently projects like the Linux kernel.
We disagree! I don't know why you'd want to intentionally use an inferior tool. git is a superset of svn. It can do everything that svn can do, and more. There's no reason to use inferior software if you don't have to.For everything you'd do on a hobby level, Subversion is absolutely enough.
I branch for every feature. I'm not even kidding. If you're curious, you can find out about the workflow that I use on the documentation for using git with XOmB that I wrote.(How often do you expect to branch your own project?)
You don't branch in SVN, because it's hard (okay, branching is not, but merging is). Instead you probably use something on top like quilt to avoid the choice between having to clutter your history with incomplete commits that don't ever work or not using version control at all until the change is perfect.Solar wrote:Git and its ilk are perfect for huge, massive-concurrently projects like the Linux kernel. For everything you'd do on a hobby level, Subversion is absolutely enough. (How often do you expect to branch your own project?)
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see how attitude of lead programmer can actually permeate all the way through to the user base.steveklabnik wrote:Unsubstantiated. As long as you're not an idiot, git is not difficult.Solar wrote:Complexity
Perhaps, perhaps not. What's this "git clone", and how is it different from "git checkout"? You know, I'm a dinosaur, and perhaps an idiot, too, but every VCS I have used so far used "checkout" (or "co"), so what's this "clone" about?steveklabnik wrote:svn wrote: svn co svn+ssh://path/to/your/repo .
*edit files*
svn commit -m "message, lol"
svn upYes. Much harder.git wrote: git clone git://path/to/your/repo
*edit files*
git commit -a -m "message, lol"
git pull
I use a mixture of the two. I like UltraEdit not only because it's probably the best text editor I've used so far, but because I found the lead programmer to be a friendly, responsive guy who reacts well to costructive criticism. I dislike the Linux kernel not only because of some technical issues, but because of the attitude of those involved, too.I evaluate the software that I use by its technical merits, not by who wrote it or how much I like them.
Mostly because I don't consider SVN to be inferior, merely different.I don't know why you'd want to intentionally use an inferior tool.
What git offers in addition to svn - clone, pull, merging, etc. - is exactly that part of git I would never use. So why bother setting up a superset if what I have fits the bill?git is a superset of svn. It can do everything that svn can do, and more. There's no reason to use inferior software if you don't have to.
I absolutely believe you. But are you doing that because it's the best way to do it, or because it's the way heralded by the tool you use?I branch for every feature. I'm not even kidding.
I don't branch (often) in SVN because I consider a branch to be a sign of previous work not well done, and another needless complexity in your source tree. Your projects might differ, you might be happy with git, that's absolutely OK. But my opinion holds, you don't need git or its branch-and-merge workflow for a hobby project.You don't branch in SVN, because it's hard (okay, branching is not, but merging is). Instead you probably use something on top like quilt to avoid the choice between having to clutter your history with incomplete commits that don't ever work or not using version control at all until the change is perfect.
Well, development branches are not about previous work, but about future extensions. But if you want to stick with the "work not well done", I admit that when preparing a patch series I usually don't get it right in the first attempt. So I don't want to have each step set in stone when I'm starting with the next one because I only know if it was completely right when the whole thing is done. This is what I used to use quilt for in SVN times and what I'm using git branches for now.Solar wrote:I don't branch (often) in SVN because I consider a branch to be a sign of previous work not well done, and another needless complexity in your source tree.
Let me change that a bit: "You don't need git or its branch-and-merge workflow for every hobby project, but for a lot of projects it makes perfect sense".But my opinion holds, you don't need git or its branch-and-merge workflow for a hobby project.
"Some", and we have a deal.Kevin wrote:Let me change that a bit: "You don't need git or its branch-and-merge workflow for every hobby project, but for a lot of projects it makes perfect sense".Solar wrote:But my opinion holds, you don't need git or its branch-and-merge workflow for a hobby project.
It's not really that, I'm just another really opinionated person.Solar wrote:And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see how attitude of lead programmer can actually permeate all the way through to the user base.
I never called you an idiot. I know from your posts that you know quite a bit. Also, I didn't call anyone an idiot because they don't agree with me, I called them an idiot if they can't grasp git. There's a difference.I'm not an idiot, and I don't like how your statement implies me to be one simply because I do not agree with you.
It's not more difficult. It has more options. The extra options are 'difficult' in the sense that svn doesn't even have the options at all.I wouldn't even say that git is difficult for a tool that does what git does. But git does more than SVN, so yes, git is more difficult than SVN, especially if the additional features are exactly what I would never use anyway.
Git actually has a 'checkout' operation, but 'clone' is more useful, because hey, it does more. You can 'git co' all you want.Perhaps, perhaps not. What's this "git clone", and how is it different from "git checkout"? You know, I'm a dinosaur, and perhaps an idiot, too, but every VCS I have used so far used "checkout" (or "co"), so what's this "clone" about?
(Yes, I'm playing the dofus here, but perhaps you get my meaning.)
.I'm not going to say that a good community is a bad thing. Far from it. It's one of the reasons that I enjoy Haskell hacking as much as I do. But don't let your distaste of Linus stop you from using great software.I use a mixture of the two. I like UltraEdit not only because it's probably the best text editor I've used so far, but because I found the lead programmer to be a friendly, responsive guy who reacts well to costructive criticism. I dislike the Linux kernel not only because of some technical issues, but because of the attitude of those involved, too.
You are free to have incorrect opinions. I won't argue with you about them. Just be aware that you're wrong.Mostly because I don't consider SVN to be inferior, merely different.
I totally agree. Switching for the sake of switching is a silly thing to do. But even for just offline commits, that's one super huge important useful feature right there. That alone was enough to get me to switch.I don't know about you, but I switch only when I actually see a benefit in doing so, not because there's shiny new technology to be had.
That's fine. Just be aware that by virtue of you only needing a butter knife and not a chainsaw, the butter knife isn't "just different" than the chainsaw.What git offers in addition to svn - clone, pull, merging, etc. - is exactly that part of git I would never use. So why bother setting up a superset if what I have fits the bill?
Not at all. I do not believe that you're an idiot. But this whole, "programming is hard, let's go shopping!" attitude is bad for CS as a whole. Don't shy away from hard things! You'll find out that they're not even really hard, you just think they are.And again that completely uncalled-for side remark making the whole discussion rather pointless because I'm an idiot anyway, right?
01000101 wrote:I honestly don't care all that much between the two... as long as "the two" doesn't ever include Mercurial (hg).
*shudders*
Nice attitude.steveklabnik wrote:You are free to have incorrect opinions. I won't argue with you about them. Just be aware that you're wrong.Mostly because I don't consider SVN to be inferior, merely different.
Again, a feature I don't need. Offline diffs, now, that'd be something I'd miss sorely, but SVN has them.But even for just offline commits, that's one super huge important useful feature right there. That alone was enough to get me to switch.
Yes it is, and thank you for the excellent metaphor. When did you last butter your breakfast bread with a chainsaw?That's fine. Just be aware that by virtue of you only needing a butter knife and not a chainsaw, the butter knife isn't "just different" than the chainsaw.
I prefer to focus on the hard things that are part of the problem - like, the next bug - instead of the solution - like, a versioning system that's overkill for my needs.I do not believe that you're an idiot. But this whole, "programming is hard, let's go shopping!" attitude is bad for CS as a whole. Don't shy away from hard things! You'll find out that they're not even really hard, you just think they are.