Hacker News Reader

Comment by boyter | Hacker News Reader

This is going to sound rude, but how about you do what the people paying you tell you to do? Thats why they give you money, to provide them value which you will not be doing while trying to circumvent their procedures and rules.

Maybe they evaluated GIT and decided their business case suited SVN more?

You wouldnt code your stuff in PHP if they are an ASP.NET shop because you like PHP more would you? By all means try to educate them to use what you feel is a better tool, but until then suck it up and do what everyone else is doing.

View on HN

I think you've misinterpreted the OP or the purpose of svn-git -- that programming language metaphor doesn't work at all.

Rather, everybody at his job uses Notepad and he'd like to use vim. It improves his performance and affects nobody else.

Perhaps. But think of it this way, if he wastes any time figuring out how to do something using GIT or corrupts the repository, or breaks something and has to spend time fixing it, the time is on his hands. If you are using SVN like everyone else then its not your issue.

I have found in the workplace it is better to stick to what they supply and ask you to use and change it by pushing people in the right direction then to assume you know better and do your own thing.

Look at it from the employeers perspective. If you say use SVN and someone says "Pffft I will use GIT" and then they loose a days work because of it who am I going to blame?

You are assuming that the employer doesn't care about improved workflows, and also that the employer has already evaluated git thoroughly.

Ever considered that you might be wrong on both counts?

Yes I have. If you think circumventing the procedures your workplace follows because you dont like them is going to endear you to your employeers then go ahead. Part of being in a workplace is following the rules. Dont like them? Then change them internally or leave. People who are not team players are not useful in the workplace no matter how productive they are individually.

I think you are mistaken. We are starting to institute procedures, and the boss is very reasonable. He'll accept a solution in which the workflows are more natural. He has accepted procedures / choices that I have advocated in the past (with well-reasoned arguments in support of my choices, of course).

Arguing that the 'main' repo has to be git is a tough sell, but I think we'll get there eventually, once we show how much easier experimental branching, disconnected operation, distributed nature etc will be advantageous to us.

The git-svn solution is pretty good, because the main repo will be svn, and people who are used to svn (and like the restrictions that come with it) will be happy as well. Git users will also be able to get all the benefits of using it..

I that case I apolagise. It seems you were asking a technical question (which you already knew the answer too) but seemed to phrase it as a policy question.

The other alturnative is to check out using SVN, check that into GIT, do your changes as normal from here and when finished check back into SVN. You only branch and so forth on your local machine but it also ensures you dont break the main repo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com