Jason McReynolds Wrote:Roland Melkert Wrote:I have been looking into setting up svn.melkert.net (as I still prefer svn over git) for another reason so I might go that route.That's great, a centralized, managed repository could come in real handy. svn, git, whatever, doesn't matter to me.
Milan Vančura Wrote:About the repository: good idea! I just, if I can, recommend git even you are familiar to svn so far - with git, you do not need to handle user rights (because we'll not need the write access), merging of branches is no longer a headache and, most important for you: you can see every commit as an e-mail (or "submit request") before you apply it to your tree. What saves a lot of time of the tree maintainer.
Of course, I'll respect any repository format you setup, I just wanted to share some years of experience to help you...
I think I might reverse my impartiality a little after Milan's comment and side more with git. I think I was more excited about a central repository than anything. Thought I'd add a little more to Milan's comment about git. Not trying to gang up on you Roland!
I remember when I first started looking at version control software I used svn (was doing Android development). Then I talked to my brother, who had been doing web development for a decade, and he recommended git (he had used svn before). One of the big selling points for me with git was that it didn't litter all the directories with additional files. So, I tried it out, liked it, switched to git and haven't looked back. Haven't really had any gripes about it, but I'm no power user either. Merging is pretty straightforward too. My brother also mentioned Git-Flow (more here), which seemed pretty cool. However, my experience with git has been mostly for personal use. Just sharing my experience too.