I wonder how many people use git primarily for "git clone <github url>" and that's about it?
I have to admit we still use svn at work (although I've started using git at home on personal stuff) but at the moment the most frequent task I use git for is still simply cloning stuff from github.
At work, before we switched to Git, I used the git-svn bridge. It feels kind of hackish, svn-externals don't work and working with remote branches is doable but you have to be careful when merging ... that being said, I did extensive work with local/remote branches with git-svn and I never saw anybody actually branching / merging in SVN.
I would never go back to SVN. And this is not a zealot-thing in which I'm stating an opinion to protect an investment -- Git is so much better that it isn't even funny.
I agree I prefer git (and also agree that 99% of svn usage in our environment doesn't involve any merging), I think it's just that svn is filling our need for a remote backup/storage for the source code so we're sticking with that for now.
That said we are a very small team and all in the same office so it hasn't been an issue.
I suspect we will slowly start moving new projects over to git though.
To this day, I've yet to hear an argument for git's superiority that wasn't predicated on:
- The assumption that hiding your work in a local branch is somehow a general feature instead of being detrimental to communication and optimized for Linux's development model, or
- Based on a 2003-era understanding of SVN and its support for merge tracking, branch switching, etc.
I keep hearing a lot of enthusiasm but not much to back it up. Do you have a different take than the above?
I have to admit we still use svn at work (although I've started using git at home on personal stuff) but at the moment the most frequent task I use git for is still simply cloning stuff from github.