Comments on: should i use git over subversion

By: git plugins for eclipse and netbeans | Down Home Country Coding With Scott Selikoff and Jeanne Boyarsky

Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:15:59 +0000

[…] year, I tried out Git for the first time. The command line was fine, but I really like my version control to be integrated into my […]

By: Sathya Sekaran

Sathya Sekaran — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:31:42 +0000

Oh, and did I mention Git is about a billion times faster than subversion? Ever get tired of waiting for big commits to go through? I no longer have that problem using Git.

By: Sathya Sekaran

Sathya Sekaran — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:28:52 +0000

You can set up git in many different ways, including setting it up just like subversion. You can setup one git which does not have a working copy (like a subversion server) and your developers could “push” their code to that central repository when they’re ready.

Heck, you could even use the hooks git provides to force your developers to have the latest central version of the code before committing, and also to force them to push their code to the central repository after committing, JUST like subversion.

I personally couldn’t do that to my fellow developers, because they enjoy being able to make sure a feature is ready before asking me to pull it from them and test it out.

Regarding auditing: You can keep one copy of the repository (your own, perhaps) which you control solely, and you can run integration tests on, and you can decide whose commits come into it. The fact that every git repository contains a FULL history of all commits made makes it MORE easy to recover, not less. Think about it–if you have 10 developers, you have 10 full backups of your code base and every commit ever made. A potential hacker would have to hack into every single repository and corrupt them all the exact same way in order to be successful. And even then, it’s most likely that you’d be able to tell something was changed (Git has some auditing tools built in, to check the integrity of the repository).

By: Jeanne Boyarsky

Jeanne Boyarsky — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:45:23 +0000

I haven’t tried Mercurial . I don’t like personal branches/branch per feature though so I can’t see why it would be for me. And the developers on this project aren’t experienced enough to have a a feel for process. This sounds like a way to give them rope to hang themselves.

By: Fabrizio Giudici

Fabrizio Giudici — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:18:15 +0000

Distributed SCMs are way more powerful than Subversion. If I were you, I didn’t worry for the frequency of pushes to the main repo: this doesn’t depend on the tool, but on your process. Indeed, the fact that you can commit locally is just a freedom degree more, as it simplifies a very good practice IMO, which is “branch per feature” – as usual, freedom must be used with responsibility. Of course, tooling is a real issue and you should double check it.

I’ve personally moved to Mercurial a few months ago – it’s very similar to Git and the two things can substantially do the same stuff. You could even evaluate Mercurial in addition to Git. Mercurial support is excellent in NetBeans (NetBeans has got a Git plugin too).

I’ve written a very short tutorial about how I’m using Mercurial on my projects, and it could be helpful to learn its potential: http://jrawio.rawdarkroom.org/development/mercurial+best+practices/ – between July and August I’ve also blogged many times about it http://www.java.net/blogs/fabriziogiudici/

By: Mustang

Mustang — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:39:49 +0000

Have you tried Mercurial?
I’ve been using MercurialEclipse and I find it pretty productive.

In fact, I use hg to control my source code locally then I push to an SVN repo where my other team mates can fetch it.

By: FlorianO

FlorianO — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:52:06 +0000

Well, my idea of this complete stack is not only to have a repository on your local system, but also the CI system. Without pain you can change configuration, still working, add new Tests, still working, if you commit to central repository you already know it will going well.

I think this approach is highly dependent of your setup. If you are working in a small team in a company, were everyone is working in the same room at the same time. Benefit of personal branches etc without the problem of missing CI. If you have a very disconnected setup, you may need a CI System on every developer computer.

By: Nils Breunese

Nils Breunese — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:17:08 +0000

Just host one Git repository and call it the master. People working on the code can clone the repository, work on it and when something is done it can be incorporated in the master repository. No problem there.

By: Veera

Veera — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:56:27 +0000

Few of my friends suggested me to use Git, instead of subversion. Yet to check it out.

By: Jeanne Boyarsky

Jeanne Boyarsky — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:20:03 +0000

Mike: I think I’m going to try that. It lets me play with GIT without affecting the project or anyone else.

Toby: These are really new developers. In particular, they are high school students. I think it’s more productive for them to have fun and like programming than learn details of a tool. And if they like the command line, they can still use it. I didn’t know about GitHub It sounds interesting.