Actually Jeffery, I have to disagree with you. SVN just came out with the new 1.5 version of the software. Now granted, it wasn't a feature from the start, but now it does track the merges between branches. It also added the feature to shelf code until the developer is ready to check in. So the SVN developers have been seeing what Git is doing and trying to improve SVN.<br>
<br><a href="http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.5_releasenotes.html">http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.5_releasenotes.html</a><br><br>Thanks,<br>Aaron Korver<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Ollie <<a href="mailto:jeff@ocjtech.us">jeff@ocjtech.us</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Lathrop Preston<br>
<<a href="mailto:lathrop@prestonfam.org">lathrop@prestonfam.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Git might be useful however I think that<br>
> the "normal" VCS system is much more suited to a developer shop model. We<br>
> have developers, designers, and "production" people all working against<br>
> common code bases. The Git model just seems to complicate the VC compared to<br>
> say SVN if you are using it right. I can see how it might be useful in a<br>
> distributed setup (still a bit wary) but the number of merges & conflicts<br>
> that Git seems inclined to generate would be a pain in your average shop.<br>
<br>
</div>*Git* doesn't generate conflicts. For that matter neither does CVS,<br>
Subversion, Mercurial, Bazaar, Darcs, or whatever other VCS you can<br>
come up with.<br>
<br>
*Developers* generate conflicts. Developers generate conflicts when<br>
two or more people edit the same sections of code. What separates<br>
VCSs is how good the VCS is at helping developers resolve those<br>
conflicts. CVS and Subversion SUCK at this. The distributed VCSs do<br>
much much better jobs at helping developers resolve the conflicts<br>
because they keep track of the merges as well as the branches and use<br>
that information to resolve conflicts. And before you say that CVS<br>
and Subversion don't have this problem, they do - you just don't<br>
realize it. CVS and Subversion effectively force you to merge your<br>
local changes to the central repository on every commit and prevent<br>
you from committing unless there are no conflicts. Distributed VCSs<br>
let the developer delay the need to merge until a time that is more<br>
convenient to them.<br>
<br>
I happen to believe that Git is one of the best tools out there for<br>
managing source code, no matter the size of your shop. The other<br>
distributed VCSs do a good job too and may suit you better.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
Jeff<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Cialug mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Cialug@cialug.org">Cialug@cialug.org</a><br>
<a href="http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug" target="_blank">http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>