Jody Garnett a écrit :
> Okay so distributed version control is the gain.
It is really a different way to think about code repository. Each developper has
a local copy of the whole history, but the history may be different for each of
them. My revision 400 may be completly different than your revision 400. There
is no central repository - when we do the equivalent of "svn update", I choose
to update with your repository, or with Andrea's one, etc. on a case-by-case
basis (so "I want the nice work of Alice on Y, then I want the nice work of Joe
on X", etc.). We can decide that a particular repository is "central", but this
is an arbitrary choice and no one is forced to follow it.
Its look like weird and scary, but Mozilla and OpenJDK choose this development
model with Mercurial. As said in my previous email, I'm hesitant. I feel that
the impact is not only technical, but it would also impact the way the GeoTools
community is structured. Having a central repository as in the SubVersion model
can also have its advantages, since it may be a factor of community coherence (I
wonder if a distributed system would be a risk of fractionment). On the other
hand, it allows non-core developper to do their own experiment more easily. An
entreprise could have their Mercurial system mixing GeoTools core development
with the work of their employee.
Martin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
