Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AE329D37 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:20:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 48069 invoked by uid 500); 14 Aug 2012 00:20:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 48019 invoked by uid 500); 14 Aug 2012 00:20:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 48011 invoked by uid 99); 14 Aug 2012 00:20:09 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:20:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gosmith@adobe.com designates 64.18.1.21 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.18.1.21] (HELO exprod6og108.obsmtp.com) (64.18.1.21) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:20:00 +0000 Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob108.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUCmZmjQQdBUqhzK+vhSRXHxlppGQ0dxI@postini.com; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:19:39 PDT Received: from inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-4b [10.128.4.237]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q7E0Jc8N006111 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:19:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nacas02.corp.adobe.com (nacas02.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.100]) by inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id q7E0JbYr028670 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SJ1SWM219.corp.adobe.com (10.5.77.61) by nacas02.corp.adobe.com (10.8.189.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.0; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:19:36 -0700 Received: from nambx05.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.124]) by SJ1SWM219.corp.adobe.com ([fe80::d55c:7209:7a34:fcf7%11]) with mapi; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:19:36 -0700 From: Gordon Smith To: "flex-dev@incubator.apache.org" Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:19:35 -0700 Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Branching Strategy and SCM Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Branching Strategy and SCM Thread-Index: Ac15sYQOzUEIKuG6SkyUvvdf/qj6iQAAN+bQ Message-ID: <149F8129B58B2D418508E63117D9C5419B3A545728@nambx05.corp.adobe.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 How does Git make merges better than in SVN? - Gordon -----Original Message----- From: Omar Gonzalez [mailto:omarg.developer@gmail.com]=20 Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 5:12 PM To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Branching Strategy and SCM > SVN doesn't allow you to have more than one branch in your whiteboard? > Most > of these arguments still seem to be about fear of merge-hell in SVN. =20 > Which is valid, but the logic about when to branch/merge seems to apply t= o both. > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > > I would agree that the branching strategy can apply to both, its just a mat= ter of which tool is going to handle these workflows better. Git will handl= e these workflows better because branching is its killer feature. In SVN br= anching is the feature that kills it, if you run into merge hell. -omar