This is true. Good point.

2008/5/22 David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Laszlo Pandy wrote:
>> Personally I think Bazaar is the best client, but SVN is the best server.
>> The SVN server is most mature, etc, and the only thing it doesn't do well is
>> renaming. Bazaar has a lot of cool distributed features, but since we need
>> one 'official' branch that we release from, it has to be centralized, so
>> Bazaar or SVN doesn't really matter.
> I think it is a mistake to see branch as worthless because you want to
> release from one branch. IMHO, that's the biggest mistake you could do,
> actually, when considering a DVCS. DVCS are not about having many equal
> branches; it is about removing the *technical* barriers to branch, to change
> branches, etc... SVN itself suggests a scheme to have one branch per release
> BTW. For linux, most people take code from linux branch.
> The biggest problem with subversion is that it does not do branching
> correctly: sure, you can do it, but nobody really does, because it is
> extremely error prone (no merge tracking, etc... svnmerge is far from enough
> to circumvent this). bzr (and all other DVCS) do merge correctly, because a
> DVCS requires a merge system which is convenient. It is not that DVCS are
> inherently better at merging: it is just that nobody would use a DVCS if
> merging was as bad as in svn.
> With a DVCS, you can have many branches, some more important than others: I
> use bzr for all my projects, and most of the time, I am the only one
> contributing to them, but I still use branches all the time. Why ?
>   - with 'feature' branches, it is easy to navigate within one branch to see
> the work on one feature without being annoyed by other people commits
>   - with bug branch, you can easily test whether the fix is working or not
>   - with release branch, you can manage release much more easily.
> Once you are used to this kind of workflow, it is extremely difficult to go
> back to svn.
> cheers,
> David
jokosher-devel-list mailing list

Reply via email to