[wp-hackers] Switching from SVN
otto at ottodestruct.com
Thu Dec 9 19:30:35 UTC 2010
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:33 AM, scribu <mail at scribu.net> wrote:
> 3) A few of us are not convinced that moving from a patch-based workflow is
> beneficial in all but the rarest of cases.
> With this one I have to disagree.
> Given the right interface, reviewing commits is much better than having to
> go over all the code in a series of patches, over and over again, trying to
> guess the differences between them.
> Not to mention the convenience of local commits, compared to re-uploading
> new versions of patches.
For the record, I don't get git. I find it confusing and difficult to use.
Basically, it doesn't make any sense to me why I'd want a local copy
of the repository. How is forking better than working via patches? Why
should I need to work with some piece of repository software just to
The patch/diff program is a well understood and well tested piece of
software. I don't have to know SVN or any other type of repo to make a
patch. I can just download the latest ZIP file, make my changes, run
diff over it, then send the diff file.
My problem with it is that it's not really any more difficult to apply
a diff than it is to go through some obscure and hard-to-understand
I grant you that maybe git is easier. But for me, it's harder because
it means that I have to learn an entirely different workflow system
that doesn't make any form of intuitive sense. That takes time to do,
and frankly, I don't want to spend that much time on it. I'd rather
make patches and just get the job done instead.
If you already know how to use SVN and diffs and such, then there is
no benefit to switching to a git-like approach. It's not faster. It's
not really easier. It's certainly a lot more confusing. And in the
end, the same work gets done anyway, either way.
More information about the wp-hackers