[holy ruby programmers batman!] svn access / next release

Markus Prinz markus.prinz at qsig.org
Wed Jan 2 18:36:12 EST 2008

On 02.01.2008, at 20:34, Giles Bowkett wrote:
> 1) Does a nice stress-free approach exist? (Letting somebody else do  
> it counts.)

There's git-svn, which allows you to clone (checkout) an existing  
Subversion-Repository into git's format, and do an update and commit  
to the Subversion-Repo from your git-Repo (while still having all of  
git's goodness).

Usually it's not included with the git distribution (in package  
managers that is), but on MacPorts it's only a "sudo port install git  
+svn" away.

> 2) Why git over svn?

There are already a great many blogposts about this, so I'm just going  
to link[0] to them, but personally I'm using it because:
.) It's distributed. That means there is no central server like in  
Subversion, where everybody has to commit to (and update from)[1].  
Instead, what Subversion would call a working copy is a complete clone  
of the repository. This means you can commit (push in dvcs-lingo) your  
changes against your local repo, and when your feature is done, you do  
one huge push to commit everything to the official repo.
.) Branching. Branching allows you to create a (local) clone of trunk  
(called master or master-branch in git-lingo), and do your work in  
there. Once done, you merge your changes back into the master-branch.  
This is especially useful if you develop a lot of things in parallel.  
For example, I currently have (besides the master branch) a branch  
called "config" where I developed the Utility Belt Configurator, and  
one called "refactor", where I refactored the requires. Since the  
branches are completely independent of each other, I could generate a  
diff against master to get all the refactoring changes.
.) Merging. Git's merging algorithms are much, much better than  

regards, Markus

[0]: This is no exhaustive list, but it should get you started:

[1]: There usually still is a central server, but it is no longer a  
technical necessity, but rather a social convenience (Linus Torvalds  
called it "a public watering hole")

More information about the Utilitybelt-tinkering mailing list