Hacker News Reader

Comment by benaston | Hacker News Reader

Are you serious? With a DVCS you can commit to a personal repository offline, this in itself is a killer feature. Git also tracks content rather than files which makes renaming so much less problematic when it comes to subsequent merges (and who likes merges?). Git has the concept of stashing changes enabling rapid context switches without losing work in progress. It is significantly faster. It uses less disk space for branches. Creating branches is much quicker due to a fundamentally different way of branching. Finally, it has a killer app in GitHub. What more do you want?

View on HN

Are you serious?

Was that necessary?

As I said to billybob, when I work in cvs or Subversion, my team is working on a branch. Personally, I work on a branch of that branch. I check in anytime I like. When I want my teammates to receive my code, I merge back to the team branch. So, I don't really get the 'sandbox' advantage of git.

Speed and disk space have never been an issue for me with cvs or Subversion. The content-tracking sounds interesting, but really, I don't rename files all that often.

it has a killer app in GitHub

That doesn't have any sway on my choice of version control. I sometimes retrieve files from GitHub, but that's about it.

I don't know, I haven't heard anything really compelling about git. People who use it seem really excited about it, but not for any reasons that strike me as particularly objective.

Please accept my apologies, my original response was a little OTT. The objective reasons for making the switch are:

- its a lot faster (IIRC creating a branch in subversion is the same as a copy operation) - the merging algorithm is better (this is so important IMO) - you get to commit when disconnected from the network - because it is faster and uses significantly less space, you can improve the way you segregate changes, giving you more (and improved) options when it comes to your branching strategy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com