I would even say just because Git doesn't scale as it looks like from what you've said doesn't mean DVCS as a concept doesn't scale in general.
Cheers Daniel On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > Personnaly i think DVCS are great for new, small and not very active > projects. > > I'm not sure of the gain for us (from a project point of view) > > - Romain > > > 2011/11/27 David Blevins <[email protected]> > >> >> On Nov 27, 2011, at 4:35 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> >> > * tags and branches are always repository-global! It's not possible to >> just tag a single subdirectory as you can do in SVN. You really need to >> know upfront how you will going to release your stuff later (all the >> modularisation thingy), because that's exactly the way you need to separate >> your repositories. >> > >> > * git does not support a real sparse checkout handling and >> git-submodules handling still sucks. >> > >> > * you cannot move a directory with all his history from one git repo to >> another one (e.g. sandbox to proper) if they don't have a common tree-ish >> ancestor. >> >> Disappointing. We move stuff in and out of trunk all the time. And as >> you point out on the Maven list, having a ton of tiny repos, some active >> some not, is really frustrating. Reorganizing has serious consequences -- >> dead repos, lost history, etc. >> >> The "one big ASF repo" that SVN offers is really elegant. Git's pension >> to force you to split things up into tiny islands between which code cannot >> flow with history seems to eat away at some of the advantages Git brings. >> >> Are there plans in the Git roadmap to improve this? >> >> Why are people not holding their feet to the fire and making them fix such >> basic things? >> >> >> -David >> >> >
