Re: [PHP-DEV] CVS to SVN Migration

(moving over to that that other list to reduce internals spaming)

On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 10:15 +0100, Richard Quadling wrote:
> 3 - GIT uses a SHA1 hash to group the changes. I find this next to useless
> to compare versions as there is no version number per se (at least not one I
> can see). I've only got git-gui for Windows. It works very differently to
> the Tortoise tools.

A simple version number does not make sense in the way git works. Git is
extremely focused on branching and merging multiple times a day
basically.  As soon as you work on multiple branches in parallel and
then merge back you get a conflict with version numbers so they get
quite random. In the end it's not different from sha-1, maybe a bit
shorter but you usually don't need the full sha-1 key but jsut the first
few characters.

The benefit of the sha-1 key is that it ives you cryptographic security
about the repository - as long as the sha-1 works no attacker might have
corrupted the repository. 


> Purely from my own experience and knowledge level, I like SVN. I like the
> idea of a group of changes being linked. I miss the version numbering (it
> may just be that Prototype don't need them ...).
> 
> git feels very different to CSV and SVN. It may just be I need to change the
> way I see the information provided.

.. and the way one works. It's really about working with branches and
merging them all day.

> If git can provide in-file version numbering (like CVS does), then that
> would feel more comfortable than the SHA1 hashes used.

No, as you get conflicts when really using git.
bzr solves that by using a visible number increasing on every commit
(like svn) and if a tree is mared that is basically renumbered. So on
the one end you get a "nice" number but for more complex operations need
a second version number which is more unique and kept a bit hidden...

btw. I'm a git fan boy - but i can see reasons why git doesn't fit to
PHP...

johannes