Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Subversion Project Migrates To Git

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the seasonal-variety dept.

Programming 162

New submitter gitficionado (3600283) writes "The Apache Subversion project has begun migrating its source code from the ASF Subversion repo to git. Last week, the Subversion PMC (project management committee) voted to migrate, and the migration has already begun. Although there was strong opposition to the move from the older and more conservative SVN devs, and reportedly a lot of grumbling and ranting when the vote was tallied, a member of the PMC (who asked to remain anonymous) told the author that 'this [migration] will finally let us get rid of the current broken design to a decentralized source control model [and we'll get] merge and rename done right after all this time.'" Source for the new git backend.

cancel ×

162 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

April Fool's! (5, Funny)

barlevg (2111272) | about 5 months ago | (#46631551)

In related news, Microsoft will be using Gmail for their company email, and Apple will be replacing their workstations with Linux boxes.

Re:April Fool's! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631621)

Apple seriously uses Outlook Exchange for their mail servers, though.

Re:April Fool's! (3, Informative)

lgw (121541) | about 5 months ago | (#46631859)

Apple seriously uses Outlook Exchange for their mail servers, though.

[Archer]You can just say "Exchange"[/Archer]

And the iCloud is stored on Azure. The whole "Onion or Reality" test can be difficult in tech these days.

Re:April Fool's! (2, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 5 months ago | (#46633553)

Apple seriously uses Outlook Exchange for their mail servers, though.

[Archer]You can just say "Exchange"[/Archer]

And the iCloud is stored on Azure. The whole "Onion or Reality" test can be difficult in tech these days.

Well, given Apple's not exactly a well known entity in the MTA market, or in the cloud computing market, I don't see the big deal that they're using Exchange and Azure.

They're both good products run by people who know what they're doing. At least, know more than Apple on those topics. And neither is something Apple wants to get in and support directly. I mean, yes they could do it, but I suspect that Microsoft simply does it better and probably more securely than Apple on their own.

Re:April Fool's! (1)

lgw (121541) | about 5 months ago | (#46633889)

There's also a lot to be said for sticking to what you can be great at, and leaving the rest to someone else. But it's anathema to "Apple fans" who are really "Microsoft anti-fans", who show up a lot on Slashdot.

Apple is BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631641)

Apple is BSD

Re:Apple is BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631741)

Not really. it kind of has some BSD relations.

Re:Apple is BSD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631777)

Not really. it kind of has some BSD relations.

My niggercock kind of had some relations with yo mama's vagina!

Re:Apple is BSD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46634273)

Your grammar and spelling belie your ethnic claim.

Re:April Fool's! (0)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 5 months ago | (#46631809)

Actually, I've read pieces written by ex SVN developers that make this joke believable... many of the devs wouldn't even grumble about it.

Re:April Fool's! (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 5 months ago | (#46632437)

I actually believed the headline until I read more of the summary. Ya it sounds totally crazy and stupid, yet that's the sort of idiocy that happens every day in computing.

Re:April Fool's! (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 5 months ago | (#46634377)

I actually believed the headline until I read more of the summary.

And...? The summary and headline are in agreement. (There was a Soylent article too that looked like a blatant April Fool's Day joke but actually wasn't.)

Granted, in the months leading up to the Slashcott, I actively assumed that every summary was blatantly lying to me or at least attempting to mischaracterize the situation...so read the comments until you find the one guy who knows what's actually going on...but the quality seems to have spiked recently. (Gee, isn't that a remarkable coincidence?)

Re:April Fool's! (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 5 months ago | (#46634457)

Tony Stevenson made changes - Today 16:51
Comment [ Pfft! Happy April's fool!
For immediate release: Apache Subversion votes to rename itself Apache Irony, creates a black hole and disappears. ]

Hmm. Buried in a separate tab from the huge page of comments of everybody taking it seriously.

Re:April Fool's! (2)

drolli (522659) | about 5 months ago | (#46633275)

I am a happy user of both. Subversion and Git have different fields of application, and that is good.

Hotmail (True!) (1)

rstanley (758673) | about 5 months ago | (#46632081)

When Mickey$oft first bought Hotmail [wikipedia.org] in 1997, and for many years after, it was running Qmail [wikipedia.org] , on FreeBSD, and Solaris computers! (See also, Qmail.org [qmail.org] )

IMHO, it hasn't worked as well since they moved it to their own software! ;^)

The "joke" is on Mickey$oft! ;^)

Pixar (1)

tokiko (560961) | about 5 months ago | (#46633479)

Apple already makes use of vast numbers of Linux workstations. That office, of course, goes by the name Pixar.

Re:April Fool's! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46633605)

Slashdot's day of media incompetence. Once again proven they are not a trustworthy news sources, just run by a bunch of kids.

haha april fools. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631559)

haha. april fools

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631571)

No really. What?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46633813)

See calendar

April Fools! (1, Troll)

AnontheDestroyer (3500983) | about 5 months ago | (#46631573)

Subversion is really a joke. Gotcha!

Re:April Fools! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631765)

I've never understood the popularity of git. It may be useful for open source by supporting distributed development but it seems far less useful for a traditional corporate environment. SVN just makes far more sense to me in terms of command structure. If I wanted a DVCS I would probably go with Mercurial. Git is just awful.

Re:April Fools! (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 5 months ago | (#46631843)

I haven't used Mercurial enough to compare it meaningfully to Git, but even in a traditional corporate environment I'd take either over Subversion in a heartbeat. (In my little use of Hg I haven't liked it as much as Git, particularly TortoiseHg vs TortoiseGit, but I'm sure most of that has to do with familiarity.)

The "D" part is still occasionally useful for things like working on an airplane or something, and it's nice to commit half-baked changes without polluting a global branch namespace and worrying about policies and stuff. I recently embarked on a couple-day change to one part of our code, and made just a local Git repo so I could play around with my changes without having to go to the ground-truth repository (SVN). (I've thought about working with git-svn and haven't tried it, but I think our repository structure wouldn't work very well with that.) Once I got things done over the course of a dozen or so Git commits, I could clean them up and for submission to the actual repo.

In addition, both Git and Hg offer just a bunch of really nice features that have nothing to do with their distributed-ness; in particular, I love Git's index and add --patch/--interactive, to the point of which I actually wrote a script that tries to duplicate the add --patch with Subversion. But in part because Git was built around that idea, my script doesn't and more or less can't work as well as Git.

Git is just awful.

I have two or so big usability complaints about git, but in general I actually like it quite a bit. (And I don't say that about much software...) My general impression is that it has a sharper learning curve than Hg at the front but that it rewards that by being able to do some really nice things.

Re:April Fools! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631885)

Git is just awful.

I confess to being a fan of git, but perhaps it's simply because I had worked for a long time without proper source control before discovering git- but I'm actually curious what is awful about it? I'm definitely open to switching to something better, but from my perspective, git is easy enough, it's great for working away from the vpn / traveling, and with github it's super easy to share and find good projects (sourceforge for example is so ugly and ad-ridden)

Re:April Fools! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632117)

discovering git- but I'm actually curious what is awful about it?

Linus's decision to screw over everyone that has ever used SCM by refusing to use normal terms is the most awful part. Instead, as he admitted, he just randomly assigned words to concepts. For example, he randomly picked the word checkout to mean revert. Ditto using the word reset to mean unstage. "git pull" refuses to update the source like a normal system would. Instead you have to do the "git stash; git stash apply stash@{0}" dance. And stash/unstash is not standard in the first place since Bazaar, Mercurial, Perforce, TFS, etc. use the terms shelve/unshelve. The word clone is another odd one. On the topic, the decision to not allow clone to checkout a subset of a repository like is often done with Subversion is a curious one. Another not understanding users is the decision to disallow checking out only the current version of all files rather than every single version of every single file.

His decision to add so many dependencies to make it difficult to run Git on anything but Linux is another awful decision. The msysgit directory on Windows contains 14,589 files in 622Mbytes. A simple SCM should not require over 14,000 files! Finally, the decision to make the server side weak, especially wrt security, is also awful. As Linus admitted, his belief is that you should give everyone full access to everything. That obviously doesn't scale.

Of course, everything below the covers with Git is spectacular. We use it for a 500k file repo, and have had no problems after nine months. Before converting, our developers were wasting hours a week running "svn cleanup." Our artists are converting to it from Perforce, and other than the stupid decisions on command names and decision to not allow checking out just HEAD or a subset of the repo, they've had no problems despite working with hundreds of multigigabyte files.

Re:April Fools! (5, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | about 5 months ago | (#46632245)

For example, he randomly picked the word checkout to mean revert

That choice actually makes sense from the Git model. A Subversion person would ask why there is one command for three+ different things (svn revert, svn switch, svn up -r### are all done using git checkout). But if you turn your head around and look at it from a different perspective, all three of those are doing the same thing: copying something from the repository store to the working copy. From the Git perspective, Subversion is giving three different names to the same thing, each of which only works some of the time.

I don't want to argue Git is right, just that if it has a fault here, Git's is that its terms are at a lower level than users usually think and not that it's inconsistent on this point.

Ditto using the word reset to mean unstage.

Oh boy. The whole index is a mess of inconsistent terminology. You stage something to the index using git add, unless you're using git add --interactive in which case that process is called updating. And of course you see what the changes are in your index by using git diff --cached. Wut?

(Yes, I know, git diff --staged is now an alias for the last. Good, now all they have to do is deal with the three other synonyms for the same thing.)

"git pull" refuses to update the source like a normal system would. Instead you have to do the "git stash; git stash apply stash@{0}" dance

Here I also defend git, because I think this is a significant selling point. One major advantage that Git has is that once something is actually added to the store, it's nearly impossible to accidentally lose information. git stash adds the state to the store.

Compare to something like Subversion. Suppose you have a nice change. It's working properly. Now you svn up. Now you get a bunch of hard-to-resolve conflicts. You say "I don't want to deal with this now; I just want to go back to the state I was in before updating." Too bad, you can't (at least any way I know how). You're screwed, because Subversion has caused you to lose information.

Compare to git. You have to run stash before pulling (merging/rebasing technically of course), so now the state of the working copy right before the pull is in the store. You then stash apply. You get the conflicts, say "I give up for now". Now all you have to do is figure out what the SHA1 of the copy that was in the stash is. Might have to do some reflog digging, but it is not only possible but actually pretty easy if you know about the reflog.

Re:April Fools! (2)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | about 5 months ago | (#46633239)

You then stash apply. You get the conflicts, say "I give up for now". Now all you have to do is figure out what the SHA1 of the copy that was in the stash is. Might have to do some reflog digging, but it is not only possible but actually pretty easy if you know about the reflog.

You don't even need to bother finding the SHA1 or searching the reflog. stash apply doesn't get rid of the stash, so it's still right there as stash@{0}. You can also find it with stash list. stash pop would normally get rid of the stash after applying it, but even there the original stash is preserved if there were any merge conflicts.

Re:April Fools! (3, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | about 5 months ago | (#46634113)

Compare to something like Subversion. Suppose you have a nice change. It's working properly. Now you svn up. Now you get a bunch of hard-to-resolve conflicts. You say "I don't want to deal with this now; I just want to go back to the state I was in before updating." Too bad, you can't (at least any way I know how). You're screwed, because Subversion has caused you to lose information.

Totally this. As a subversion fanboy who has yet to jump on the git train, I see this as one of the major oversights in svn.

Personally I'm a fan of one developer, one branch. It's a bit of overhead for sure, but everyone having their own branch where they can check in their changes before merging in changes from the main branch is a nice safety net. You just have to learn to reintegrate to the feature branch often to avoid silo effect.

Re:April Fools! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632493)

My favourite part is how almost anything slightly complicated is some weird invocation of git rebase for no appreciable reason. It always reminds me of the amazing function overloading of the MS-DOS FOR command (honestly, go look it up some time). It usually takes me at least three tries to remember how to diff two branches correctly.

Granted Git is slightly better these days, but even so.

Re:April Fools! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46634145)

FYI as of git 2.0 you can do a shallow clone of a repository. You only need to specify --depth={num revisions to clone} parameter. The resulting repository is fully functional - can push/pull new commits, etc.

Re:April Fools! (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46632471)

I can answer at least some of that. I am a long time SVN user who is now using git, and while I would not call it 'awful', I do find the 'local repo' structure to be frustrating and needlessly complex, and generally comes across as over-engineered. Kinda like ClearCase, it can handle more complex situations then SVN, but that additional support causes complexity to seep into simpler cases.

I have also had difficulties with the client that I never had under SVN, with pretty much no luck with it working 'out of the box' on any of the machines I use. So in each case I have had to install the full development chain in order to rebuild the client because the one already installed is incompatible. SVN, for all its dullness, tends to be pretty conservative about changes and generally the distro installed one works.

However, for my use case, the community aspect (i.e. the finding projects) and traveling are not important, so those advantages do not get me much.

Re:April Fools! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46634167)

The mere mention of ClearCase still brings shivers deep down in my bones. Man what a nightmare.

I honestly think I would turn down a job over it. It's one of those tools I felt like we succeeded in spite of, not because of. Was so happy when they finally let us ditch it.

Re:April Fools! (5, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 5 months ago | (#46631891)

Git solves one incredibly important problem: it stops "Linux kernel commit privileges" from being a constant political battle on Linus's part. By making "official builds" pull based, instead of push based, the whole question of "who gets to commit" vanishes and Linus has full control by change, instead of by author - a far less emotional and political thing.

So Git is overwhelmingly better if you're Linus Torvalds. And, hey, that's how open source gets written. If anyone else finds it useful for anything, that's just gravy.
 

Re:April Fools! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632513)

Git solves one incredibly important problem: it stops "Linux kernel commit privileges" from being a constant political battle on Linus's part. By making "official builds" pull based, instead of push based, the whole question of "who gets to commit" vanishes and Linus has full control by change, instead of by author - a far less emotional and political thing.

So Git is overwhelmingly better if you're Linus Torvalds. And, hey, that's how open source gets written. If anyone else finds it useful for anything, that's just gravy.

You can use git in a similar authoritative manner as SVN, where you grant the user the privileges to commit to the "main" repository. The big advantage of git is that it's extremely easy to branch and merge. This is a big advantage in corporate environments where there are people who might dump a massive source code drop on you. Git will essentially make it (relatively) easy to sync up with other sources (assuming you know what the reference point is), and I've done just that. It's a few days of work.

Re:April Fools! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631907)

It may be useful for open source by supporting distributed development but it seems far less useful for a traditional corporate environment. SVN just makes far more sense to me in terms of command structure

Try a project with several thousands of files over a (broadband) VPN. I used to spend 2 out of my 8 hour workday just synching the latest edits. I have never used Git yet, but it can't possibly be slower than SVN. SVN may work for small projects, but in a corprorate environment, you want one product that works for all projects. SVN is most certainly not it.

Re:April Fools! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632109)

Uh, while it might be better in some cases, git will be vastly worse bandwidth-wise in some case, like getting a fresh checkout.
Git is designed to always make a full copy of the complete history, the sparse/minimal checkout feature doesn't really work well (and usually just means you end up with the huge data transfer when you try to update, and in addition a huge mess and no history even when you are online).
It's also close to fatal when you want (need?) to store large binaries in version control.
So if you want "works for all projects", git is a huge step further from that than SVN.

Re:April Fools! (4, Informative)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46632517)

That strikes me as an issue with your server, not SVN. I have worked on projects where SVN handled tens of thousands of files, dozens of branches, thousands of tags, etc, and found syncing to be pretty reasonable. In fact we switched over to SVN in part because Clear Case was having trouble keeping up with the volume.

Re:April Fools! (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 5 months ago | (#46634199)

That sounds like a configuration problem. SVN is seriously one of the better ones in this regard (try ClearCase if you want to see what being limited by bandwidth feels like).

If your workspace itself was on an NFS share, this might be part of it. By default svn creates a tonne of tiny files, which can take forever over NFS due to overhead.

Re:April Fools! (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 5 months ago | (#46634225)

Both git and svn have the same performance hit for an initial checkout/clone. Ditto for a large team pushing changes when you update/pull. Git seems to "push" much faster than svn "commit".

Git "commit" is nothing of the sort it is basically a tagging mechanism - which is also awesome and its major strength IMO - maybe a local commit is a better description of it, but I digress. Git with its much more powerful merge functionality is also awesome.... right up to the point that something gets fucked up. Then... well... you will spend a few hours getting straightened out where with svn the fix usually takes 5 or so minutes.

When things are working well they seem to be about the same, honestly.

Re:April Fools! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631925)

I, too, was happy with Mercurial and wonder why Git is so popular. I find Git inconsistent and confusing, and it seems to implement the idiom of most-surprise: that is, whatever a command does by default is probably not what you wanted, and the way to do anything you might consider simple is complicated.

The only reason I can come up with Gits popularity over Mercurial is that Linus wrote it. That's about it.

Re:April Fools! (3, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | about 5 months ago | (#46631985)

The only reason I can come up with Gits popularity over Mercurial is that Linus wrote it.

You may be partly right. But I think a lot of it is that for a while, Git was a lot more "powerful" -- it supported some very useful modes of operation that Hg either didn't have or wasn't very good at. So while Git was confusing, once you learned the model and commands it did a really good job of rewarding you for it.

This gap has closed substantially, particularly on the Hg side -- a lot of the "missing features" have been implemented either in core Hg or in extensions. At the same time, Git has been doing a reasonably good job at improving usability, though some issues remain.

Then again, I'm a Git user who hasn't worked much with Hg, so take what I said with a strong dose of salt.

Re:April Fools! (4, Informative)

Wootery (1087023) | about 5 months ago | (#46631927)

Disagree. I've seen Git used to good effect in a traditional corporate environment. The ability to quickly make your own branches is useful, even if there's just an SVN-style single trunk of proper code-reviewed commits. (Technically, as Git is SVN compatible, so you could get this effect simply by using Git 'locally'.)

The ability to make team-specific branches is also valuable: a team can work toward a feature using a team-local branch, and only once they're done, rebase and push their work into the the trunk. (Yes, rebasing might take work, but it can be beneficial to just 'do this all in one go' when the team is done implementing the feature, as it means the ground isn't moving beneath their feet during 'proper' development time.)

Git does everything SVN does, and an awful lot more - personally I'd only even consider going with SVN if there were a developer team who only knew SVN and didn't have time to learn Git.

Don't know much about Mercurial, but I'm sure it's good too.

Re:April Fools! (3, Insightful)

sam0ht (46606) | about 5 months ago | (#46632131)

I use Git to good effect in a fairly traditional corporate environment. We're much better off since switching over from SVN.

Never mind the 'distributed' part - the big challenge for source control in a traditional setup is when two people have both modified different parts of the same files, and the second guy goes to check in. Git is much better at handling conflicts than SVN is - conflicts that would cause real pain in SVN often merge smoothly in Git.

It's also much better at handling branches, e.g. a release branch. Remember 'tree conflicts' in SVN? Not an issue in Git.

Git is a better SVN, as well as being a distributed source control system.

Re:April Fools! (2)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46632559)

I keep hearing this, but so far I have encountered about the same amount of branch conflict in git as I have with SVN, just with the added complexity of local repo vs checkout. But I have not found any magical advantage in its ability to merge a file that has been changed by two different developers.

Branching does not seem any harder or easier.

Re:April Fools! (1)

Dynedain (141758) | about 5 months ago | (#46633071)

The difference I've seen is that Git doesn't fail miserably and corrupt your local repository tracking info the way SVN tends to.

Re:April Fools! (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 5 months ago | (#46634257)

Ha! I see just the opposite: git fucking up miserably to the point where a dev has to locally pull their changes, reclone, and overlay the changes... where svn I have never seen that.

Of course when the network goes down, so does svn.... choose your poison.

Re:April Fools! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46633105)

You are almost certainly using git wrong. The benefit comes from the ability to keep feeding out changes to the main branch much faster. You don't magically find merges of to the same place easier but you find that they happen much less often because your changes are already out there.

The fundamental philosophy here is merge early, merge often which is much better supported in git than any other tool.

Re:April Fools! (1)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46632375)

Let the religious wars begin!

In all seriousness, SVN and git have strengths and weaknesses depending on the project and its needs, though usually the biggest one is going to be 'what do your developers already know'. Git was built to support distributed projects and is really strong in those cases, SVN was built to be highly centralized and administered and tends to be stronger when that is the plan. For most small projects they are functionally equivalent, well, outside git's 'local repo' system, which ads a bit of unnecessary complexity in simple cases.

Re:April Fools! (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 5 months ago | (#46634303)

I thought svn was developed to fix the problems with cvs... which it has mostly accomplished.

Re:April Fools! (1)

Dynedain (141758) | about 5 months ago | (#46633051)

As someone who uses SVN, Git, and Hg in a corporate environment (plus we have the MS solution around here somewhere but I don't touch it), I love using Git or Hg. I've setup some pretty complex project structures and branch behaviors that take advantage of how the different systems work.

That said, I haven't seen anything that would distinguish Git over Hg (or the opposite) when used in a corporate setting. If you like Hg over SVN, then you'll like Git as well because it behaves pretty much the same way, just different syntax for the commands.

Plus, something like SourceTree goes a long way to minimizing the differences between repository types.

Re:April Fools! (1)

Zebedeu (739988) | about 5 months ago | (#46633829)

I've used git in a traditional corporate environment, and done right, it can be a lot more powerful than SVN.

"Done right" means you have someone dedicated to the role of "git master" who merges the team's commits into the master repository.
This is what Linus does, and it works to great effect. The great advantage is that individuals and teams can very easily work on their private branches before merging into mainline.

The second method is to set up a server which runs automatic tests on all commits and guarantees at least that the git history remains clean and contributions do not break the build.

From my experience, people tend to resist git because the concepts are a bit difficult to get in, especially when coming from other SCMs. It doesn't help that git uses many of the same nomenclature as other systems for slightly different operations.
However once the concept starts to settle in, git is actually quite simple and its use becomes second nature.

I don't know mercurial that well. From my experiments and what I've read on the Internet, it's essentially the same as git. Some people have strong opinions (like you seem to have) towards one or the other, but I've found that it's mostly down to small differences.
However, to me it makes no sense to use mercurial when almost all open-source projects already use git. Using mercurial only means you have to deal with two SCMs rather than one.

Re:April Fools! (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 5 months ago | (#46634539)

"Done right" means you have someone dedicated to the role of "git master" who merges the team's commits into the master repository.

I would argue that this is a good practice with svn as well. You can have a free-for-all dev branch, or even a whole dev trunk, but having someone at the top (some kind of coordinator.. of builds..) makes a lot of sense.

The second method is to set up a server which runs automatic tests on all commits and guarantees at least that the git history remains clean and contributions do not break the build.

Again, this is in no way git specific. Commit hooks are well supported in svn, and tools like hudson and jenkins handle continuous integration with svn just as well as with git.

Personally I'm an svn fan, but I think with both it comes down to using it appropriately.

My main argument for svn in the corporate argument over git is that svn is more or less designed around centralized approach whereas with git if you want that (which in a lot of corporate cases you do) it has to be enforced procedurally, but both are perfectly doable.

Re:April Fools! (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 5 months ago | (#46634151)

I use both git and svn heavily. They both have strengths and shortcomings. Git has far stronger merge and is very useful if you are a dev who has to be disconnected for any period of time. Svn is far easier to maintain from an admin point of view and is far simpler.

Choose your poison - both seem to work fine.

Re:April Fools! (1)

madprof (4723) | about 5 months ago | (#46634593)

As someone who moved from SVN to HG and now from HG to Git for the same codebase, it's quite a natural step.
The HG to Git move was because of branching behaviour, which we preferred in Git, plus the ability to use Stash.
Git has its quirks but I'm having zero problems moving.
I'd always always go with HG over SVN, any day of the week and twice on a Sunday.

Ahahaha (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631583)

See, what they've done here is concocted and published an implausible story (or in this case, tracking issue) that is designed to misdirect, nay, fool people into believing it is real. These jolly japesters have done this in the full knowledge that it will mislead people into believing it to be true, and they have chosen to do it today, on the very first day of April, as is customary in these matters.

Oh Apache and Slashdot, you are truly such ruse masters!

Seriously, April 1st is such a fucking bag of shit. Just fucking stop.

Lighten up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631947)

It's a day for laughter

Re:Lighten up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632071)

I wish someone would do something funny, then.

Re:Lighten up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632997)

And yet nothing funny is done.

funny thing is (5, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | about 5 months ago | (#46631599)

This would probably be a good idea for the future of subversion.

Re:funny thing is (2)

javilon (99157) | about 5 months ago | (#46631779)

The day git implements subversion externals functionality so it is easy and risk free to update from and commit to external branches, I'll swich my team. Git modules functionality is close, but you can make a mess if you commit while having a module set up.

Re:funny thing is (1)

stoploss (2842505) | about 5 months ago | (#46631823)

The day git implements subversion externals functionality so it is easy and risk free to update from and commit to external branches, I'll swich my team. Git modules functionality is close, but you can make a mess if you commit while having a module set up.

Okay, I admit to not fully researching this, but because I have found svn externals useful in the past I thought I would inquire.

Is this something repo (used in the Android Open Source Project, I call it "meta-git") could handle? From my experience with it, repo did many of the same things I would have used a svn external for. I admit the workflow for repo didn't seem very polished, but it did allow AOSP/CyanogenMod to meta-version various git repos for a build.

Secondly, if you dont mind going into detail, what about git modules fell short? I would like to avoid pitfalls if possible.

Hmm (3, Informative)

Anrego (830717) | about 5 months ago | (#46631603)

I've got to admit. The discussion going on in that ticket is pretty convincing, leading me to think that either:

a) legit
b) they sucked in a lot of their own people
c) really well thought out

I'm thinking (and hoping) b, with c as an unlikely but possible second.

Re:Hmm (3, Insightful)

mooingyak (720677) | about 5 months ago | (#46631737)

I've got to admit. The discussion going on in that ticket is pretty convincing, leading me to think that either:

a) legit
b) they sucked in a lot of their own people
c) really well thought out

I'm thinking (and hoping) b, with c as an unlikely but possible second.

I'll confess I was fooled until I remember what day it is.

Re:Hmm (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 5 months ago | (#46631747)

Yeah it got me for a good bit too. I was about to go post it to a chat in a making-fun-of-SVN-way at which point my brain was like "waaaaiiiit a minnnute..."

Re:Hmm (1)

hagnat (752654) | about 5 months ago | (#46631785)

unlike other years, this time slashdot has been low on april fool articles... so i was fooled as well XD

Re:Hmm (3, Insightful)

mooingyak (720677) | about 5 months ago | (#46631793)

Yeah. They're doing it right, finally.

Re:Hmm (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 5 months ago | (#46631819)

Didn't fool me. Subversion wouldn't be eating their own dog-food and that would reduce their ability to properly expand it. What better testing of something than to actually use it day-to-day? This would akin to Linus using FreeBSD. He would start to lose touch.

Re:Hmm (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 5 months ago | (#46631867)

Honestly I think it's way more political than practical.

Tools tend to have use cases that they are more suited to, while having use cases that their competition is more suited to. It's not unheard of to actually fall into your competitors use case while developing a product that competes in some other use case.

Politics however will almost always force you to use your own products when it's an option, even if it's the worst option.

Also I think if I use the words "use case" one more time today I fear I might actually grow a suit and tie.. I feel like I need a shower :(

Re:Hmm (1)

Adrian Harvey (6578) | about 5 months ago | (#46632033)

A good example of this is Xero (accounting software company) who recently had to stop using their own software because they got too big - way, way too big - but they hung in for a long time because they didn't want to be a company that didn't use it's own software.

April's Fools? (1)

RockoW (883785) | about 5 months ago | (#46631615)

Really?

April Fool's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631617)

The righteous indignation from those responding to the post in the link above is actually funnier than the post itself.

Re:April Fool's (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 5 months ago | (#46631663)

It's kinda depressing that while just about everyone external got it immediately, people (high up people) seem to have bought into it wholesale (assuming they arn't all in on it).

The joke wasn't all that funny, but yeah, the internal reaction is.

(this is assuming it's not legit of course).

This is great news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631635)

I look forward to rename finally working properly. Thanks, SVN guys!

Not so much an April's Fool Day joke... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631691)

...as wishful thinking I am guessing.

shut the fuck up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631713)

slashdot fails at april fools every year. at least you didn't force us to beta as a joke.

Change (4, Funny)

Yunzil (181064) | about 5 months ago | (#46631715)

'this [migration] will finally let us get rid of the current broken design... ... and replace it with a completely new broken design. (I hate git.)

Re:Change (1)

caseih (160668) | about 5 months ago | (#46631989)

What specifically don't you like about git? How is it a new broken design? Is it broken because it does not fit with your work flow or handle certain types of development? Curious to know.

Re:Change (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632105)

Apparently, it's designed so that every commit needs an e-mail address associated with it. This idiotic requirement may be appropriate for some forms of distributed development but to force this policy on all repositories is fascist nonsense.

The symptom of the problem is that git refuses to rebase without an e-mail address set for the base commit. I had to create a new branch and cherry-pick each commit I wanted on top of it in the proper order.

Of course this is not the worst design flaw. It's just the dumbest, with absolutely no reasonable justification possible.

Re:Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632209)

It doesn't enforce this is a real address. You should use your real address though, so that when other people inherit your code and do a git blame, we can see what BS you wrote and email you about it.

Re:Change (1)

charlesnw (843045) | about 5 months ago | (#46632501)

No it's not. Sit down and actually use it. You'll find that it doesn't require an email address at all.

Re:Change (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632123)

Broken in terms of usability mainly. It's like learning the many string and array functions of PHP, one even more powerful than the other. Some do the same thing in a different way but there is no cohesion in the way function names are formatted or what should be the order of arguments you pass in. This forces a user to memorize everything instead of using logic to figure out new possibilities or commands. I think this limits what a lot of users do with Git as a lot of users simply learn enough about Git to get them through the day when they work on their projects and don't feel any temptation to investigate any further.

Re:Change (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 5 months ago | (#46632165)

Not the OP here, but the main thing I dislike about git is the UI. The internals may be good, but the UI is a hack, complete with counter-intuitive alternate uses of commands via switches that seem like they should be used elsewhere, etc., etc., etc. Contrast that with Mercurial, which has a much more logical and consistent UI, and UI's are important (command line or of that other trendy variety). People who think the git UI is fine are probably just used to it. If you can get used to the spelling of my mother tongue, English, then you can get used to anything. That doesn't mean it was the best choice though.

As for features and capabilities, it seems to be neck and neck, which of course leads to endless debates about pros and cons. It's interesting that before git was quite so popular, people that actually sat down and compared the two, like FogCreek and Google Code, generally chose Hg. I suspect the main reason that git initially won the popularity contest is that Linus wrote it. Nowadays the choice is a bit different because using anything other than git is trying to swim against the tide, but the initial reason for its success over Hg bugs me.

Re:Change (1)

enigma32 (128601) | about 5 months ago | (#46632419)

+1 UI madness.
For me the problem with git is the extreme un-usability of the standard command-line client.

There are countless ways of doing the same operations, all of which are confusing. Unless I use a specific command on a daily basis I end up having to look it up and sift through results with varying ways of doing the same thing. It is extremely frustrating. Some of the other dvcs solutions are far superior in this regard.

Architecturally, git is fantastic. It seems to me it shouldn't be that difficult to make the standard client app easier to use on the command line. Too bad this article is a joke, I would actually love to see it happen.

Re:Change (3, Funny)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | about 5 months ago | (#46632813)

Exactly.

I love git, because all my development repos are self-contained, easy to backup and work perfectly offline.
"git rebase -i" is just wonderful.

BUT :
You want to pull and overwrite your local changes? It's as easy as :

  git add *
  git commit -a -m "auto dev server commit"
  git fetch origin master
  git merge -s recursive -X theirs origin/master

You want to clone your local repo to a new remote one and use it as origin? Sure :
#On local machine
cd foo_project
git init
git add *
git commit -m "My initial commit message"
#On remote machine (Git remote repository)
sudo su - git
cd /usr/local/git_root/
mkdir foo-project.git
cd foo-project.git/
git --bare init
git config core.sharedrepository 1
git config receive.denyNonFastforwards true
find objects -type d -exec chmod 02770 {} \;
#On local machine, in your git project
git remote add origin ssh://git@example.com:2227/usr/local/git_root/foo_project.git
git push -u origin master

Those are just 2 examples that come often enough to be an annoyance, but not often enough that I can remember them.

Re:Change (2)

Yunzil (181064) | about 5 months ago | (#46632823)

Terrible, unintuitive syntax. Horrible documentation that was apparently written for people who already understand it. Obscure error messages. Too much knowledge required up front to start using it effectively. Hard to pick up the pieces when something inevitably goes wrong.

I've seen posts elsewhere where people say "Oh, once you understand that behind the scenes it's working on blobs and trees and commits then it makes more sense. Also, graph theory." OK, but should I need to know any of that? I don't need to know how an internal combustion engine works to drive my car.

It probably makes perfect sense to Linus and people who shares his brainwaves. To us mere mortals, not so much.

But this is all moot because I just realized the article is a joke.

Ah, there it is... (1)

thevirtualcat (1071504) | about 5 months ago | (#46631761)

Not as bad as some of the jokes in years past.

I miss the old days... (3, Insightful)

markhb (11721) | about 5 months ago | (#46631821)

... when Slashdot posted nothing but joke stories all day on April 1; it was the best way to catch all of them. Maybe they decided they couldn't top themselves after OMG PONIES!!!!! (which I missed), but just sticking in one joke stories amongst a bunch of uninteresting real ones is lame. There isn't even an article on the Google prank!

Re:I miss the old days... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46631965)

It's not even Slashdot's joke, just one of the dozens of viable tech-jokes, but this one was reported here.

As for the ponies, I think the management is afraid of what they'll discover about the Slashdot userbase if they tried that again.

Re:I miss the old days... (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 5 months ago | (#46632119)

I don't miss those days when every goddamn post on 1 April was an unfunny joke.

Re:I miss the old days... (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 5 months ago | (#46632401)

Now it seems every post on any day is an unfunny joke.

Two for one (1)

Dan East (318230) | about 5 months ago | (#46632351)

Nah, they're just lumping April 1 and April 20 into one event: an Easter Egg hunt for April Fool's jokes.

Re:I miss the old days... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46634107)

OMG PONIES!!!! was the highlight of 4/1 jokes. No one has topped it ever.

Re:I miss the old days... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46634305)

There isn't even an article on the Google prank!

I hate to break it to you, but Google is real.

And Git Migrates to CVS... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632535)

and CVS migrates to RCS supported by front end in Gopher, a backend in TFTP with all discussions held over usenet using the pine news reader. If everyone would just remember to update the damn version numbers.

Re:And Git Migrates to CVS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46634061)

Oh goodness, somebody actually remembers CVS.

Re:And Git Migrates to CVS... (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 5 months ago | (#46634407)

Somebody actually remembers that pine could read news, not just email. Talk about obscure...

Now your turn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46633153)

Now if git could migrate its source code to SVN that would be great.

GIT Subversioned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46634459)

If the conclusion is the SVN backend sucks, the GIT front-end sucks more. I'm fine with an SVN interface to GIT. It's about time!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?