From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SXYFw-0003WE-A6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 24 May 2012 13:39:08 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CFE73E0921; Thu, 24 May 2012 13:38:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com (mail-we0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C96AE0942 for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 13:37:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by werj55 with SMTP id j55so6429629wer.40 for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 06:37:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ELzjiymJjI+9Do7qGkDzWznjjw0FhOUH4wBAqIWjOfs=; b=bp8amiDfP7dCdnzjajGDxNyta1N353OwrTDmqdPd0zSBBKzo8X71VWlDFq7j+sKMvz NBotAehJqu2ox9xzsa5MaKE8iI6/GZz83DisRkfEVVVF3hCTWzbb2W3f7a/vMNE54HaL Uckvbl16VJMbWmfFqxzT1MCVPlBG3qYILO5yNwHEIYg6p4KNEOlgB19+5uSxHgTlOjQH YP+kKJJy3SzO0kFDvgBrglr8zD/5sOLvxtYzHJg2x11UCrGoiBkwe14nG6bSCzjQJcPj 8OA+Zc3eFy8KMXxpTb3U06dL7IkrdmISi75+mlP168jEaaperg/dubVMLbEW5Yq0jk3b sEWw== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.80.228 with SMTP id u4mr53563092wix.5.1337866632515; Thu, 24 May 2012 06:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.60.167 with HTTP; Thu, 24 May 2012 06:37:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4FBCDB3D.1070009@gentoo.org> <2887754.yItCG0zenD@smorgbox> <5715947.t4S3h9H3z4@smorgbox> Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 01:37:12 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 29026590-5b2a-4a70-956d-e1b18c69b1b2 X-Archives-Hash: c183e8ec27d54278623513c7cb17dd39 On 25 May 2012 00:05, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: >> In that regard, git is nothing like for instance svn, where branches com= e >> at a much higher cost, as does merging between them. > > That's wrong. SVN branches are just about as cheap as git branches, > although merges used to be much more painful. I'm not sure how good > merging in recent SVN is. Cheapness ... maybe in binary disk utilization ( need an actual comparison here I think ), but in cognitive overheads, I'd argue git's branching system is definitely cheaper. Going from Git back to SVN, the mentality of "copy a directory and you have a new branch!!!" seems a bit crazy. And switching between branches in-place at a fixed disk location is definitely cheaper ( mentally at least ) than SVN. I hope I never have to use svn switch again :/ --=20 Kent perl -e=C2=A0 "print substr( \"edrgmaM=C2=A0 SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_= * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz