From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Guilhem Bonnefille" Subject: Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:41:27 +0200 Message-ID: <8b65902a0704170841q64fe0828mdefe78963394a616@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070417104520.GB4946@moonlight.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Pietro Mascagni" To: "Tomash Brechko" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 17 17:41:35 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HdpoE-0001vH-Mz for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:41:35 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030672AbXDQPla (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:41:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030678AbXDQPla (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:41:30 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.250]:21101 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030672AbXDQPl2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:41:28 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b33so2266956ana for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:41:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=YTbn/XmYmENcen6F6pisfJHda8GJ5sW8pM/uUxp8C4lUxfi4Dq7SYuNdKpYcV0NoeLDa3IFo+UxtnYHkTaKAmJOC+8rWLQdPENKDlMVfQfzaxFduTxyeg0mgszg/hXirRsNGBR70DxoFIrkxR3V3/bjGUbBOc4eOOLtJljttWBY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Pv5GXcngcMkFuYlbyvRkhlbwJM3Puviyp5JOHOpe5oIKl8eOZhyNgv0OboF2bAyJTTo8R0S6qxvZZhbRCQtsN79Kc8VGc4z9xlGGIL5r4v5xTDV+M3ke0vWgvY2zvHcVSlQzK6YFPxr11Oc3W9n7YbnQ3nZJsf8C72bEW9xUiQo= Received: by 10.100.137.18 with SMTP id k18mr5563314and.1176824487565; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.44.7 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:41:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20070417104520.GB4946@moonlight.home> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: I'm new to Git, but completly crazy of it. In my point of view, in corporate team, lot of people does not want/need the power offered by Git. So, my conclusion is the better model in a corporate is a centralyzed repo with some users using Git as "frontend". Other people will simply use the native tools for accessing the repo. I didn't try Git with CVS repo but seems less usable in day to day work than a SVN repo with git-svn FANTASTIC tool. So the problem is simply now: how to convince people to migrate from CVS to SVN. This will be really less difficult as CVS and SVN are quite similar. On 4/17/07, Tomash Brechko wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:02:18 +0100, Pietro Mascagni wrote: > > So, in 15 seconds, how does one argue that GIT is vastly superior to > > other version control software, especially CVS. > > I think you are not talking about choosing SCM for a new project, as > it is even _hard to imagine_ that one would consider CVS nowadays :). > And if you are trying to convince people to do the migration from CVS > to GIT, then technical points alone won't probably help you. GIT, and > actually most modern SCMs, are superior to CVS not simply because they > have some CVS's features improved, and some nice features added. > Modern SCMs implement completely different workflow model. GIT's own > power in its rich toolset, but until people learn (or at least are > willing to learn) what the workflow is, and how it is supported by > these tools, there's little advantage in migration. You can't really > explain why 'git commit; git push' into some central repository is > better than 'cvs commit', and pushing after every commit is what > people will be doing at first ;). You should also realize that the > whole process is probably already built around CVS (CVS-specific > hooks, scripts that access CVS, say, for nightly testing, etc), that > would also have to be reimplemented. > > You may consider another route: create a GIT mirror of CVS repository, > and update it, say, daily, with git-cvsimport. Clone from this > mirror, and work with your own GIT tree, pushing back to CVS with > git-cvsexportcommit. Yes, you will be dealing with problems that > wouldn't be there in the first place if everyone would use GIT, and > you will basically use CVS workflow, but still, this way is quite > manageable. Then approach the most promising guy in the company, and > explain to him how you benefit from using GIT (gitk/qgit, git-bisect, > StGIT are among your friends here :)). As the saying goes, "Better to > see once, then to hear about a hundred of times". You are not > interested in instant migration, and then being blamed if anything > would go wrong. When you will grow sufficient number of GIT experts > in your company, then you will raise the migration question again. > > > Good luck! > > -- > Tomash Brechko > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Guilhem BONNEFILLE -=- #UIN: 15146515 JID: guyou@im.apinc.org MSN: guilhem_bonnefille@hotmail.com -=- mailto:guilhem.bonnefille@gmail.com -=- http://nathguil.free.fr/