Greg Hewgill (ghewgill) wrote,
Greg Hewgill
ghewgill

git revelation

At work we use Subversion for version control. We chose Subversion for a couple of reasons:

  1. Central repository. We had been using Mercurial, and found that the way we work would be better served by having a known, single place which is the repository. Although Mercurial was very flexible, we had some instances of patches being lost because they didn't get pushed all the way up to the Mercurial repository which was designated as the central one. Using Subversion, changes are either in the repository or they aren't, which makes management easier. Besides, Subversion integrates very well with Jira.
  2. TortoiseSVN has great support for Word documents on Windows. All our software development activity must be documented, and the format for those documents is Word (arguments for or against this are another topic entirely). TortoiseSVN can seamlessly diff Word and Excel documents, which makes this at least tolerable (you can probably guess on which side my opinion lies).

Anyway, this post isn't really about Subversion. Instead, it's about Git and git-svn. If you work with Subversion repositories and you're using the usual svn client, stop right now and install git and git-svn[1]. I did, and my source code management experience improved dramatically.

By using git-svn, you get all the benefits of a modern source control management system as well as a nearly seamless interface to Subversion. Some of the most useful features of git for me are:

  1. git-stash allows me to easily save what I'm working on and temporarily switch to something else. I've found that I often work fairly nonlinearly, and am working on more than one thing at once. Being able to switch between them without having a whole new working clone is a great time (and space) saver. A full build of the software we're working on takes just over 5 hours.
  2. Staged commits might seem like an extra unnecessary step if you're used to the way Subversion works, but it's actually very convenient. With Subversion, to make a commit that consists of some (but not all) of your modified files, you must explicitly name those files on the svn command line and you've only got one shot at it. If you miss a file, you must make an additional commit which means your history no longer consists of logically atomic commits. With git, you add the changed files to the index, either one by one or all at once (or even parts of files, see the next point), then when you're satisfied that the index is complete, you commit the whole thing. And not only that, if you really screw up the commit and haven't pushed it anywhere else upstream, you can use git-reset to change your local history and fix it before anybody else needs to see it.
  3. git-add -p allows me to pick specific changes from a modified file that should be included in the next commit. In Subversion, if you make changes A and B and they affect files a and b, you can commit each change individually. However, if there is a third file c that contains both some changes from A and some changes from B, you have to do some fancy editing to make two separate commits with Subversion. With git, you can git-add -p c and interactively pick just the lines that are appropriate for change A. The staged commit system really helps here because you can then git-add the rest of the files that don't need individual attention.

Mercurial does have some of these features, and I like Mercurial. But the thing that sold me on git was the Subversion integration.

[1] git-svn requires the Subversion perl bindings. I don't care if you think this is too many dependencies, it's still worth it.

Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 8 comments