On 15.05.18 10:45, Russell Coker via luv-main wrote: > On Wednesday, 9 May 2018 12:54:22 PM AEST Erik Christiansen via luv-main > wrote: > > Yup, and surely remote check-in/out from the repository is standard for > > them all? > > The difference is that systems like CVS and Subversion are explicitely > designed to have a single primary repository that's not directly accessible. > No-one would ever think of Subversion as allowing people to do independent > stuff and merge it later. Git gives you the impression that you can > push/pull > from anywhere to anywhere when that isn't the case.
Ah, I had at one stage thought of modernising from CVS to Subversion, but after decades of using CVS to automatically merge concurrent edits from multiple sources, I'm disappointed to hear that Subversion is a regression in capability. (OK, on rare occasions I had to manually resolve conflicts, but CVS showed both versions of the conflicting lines, and a keystroke selected which survived. Sometimes human adjudication is essential, and > 99% automagic merging is a great productivity aid.) Without more experience with Git than a couple of check-outs for a local compile, I'd still surmise that it is not a lot more distributed than CVS if you can't "push/pull from anywhere to anywhere". (Except that I'd have expected that a push ought to be to everywhere, given my mental model of a development trunk (maybe called "main") with local development on a branch, which may be merged back into the trunk at some stage.) And given that one shared copy of the head of the trunk is an essential resource of a VCS, then it doesn't seem to matter functionally whether that is a networked central copy or distributed copies forced to be identical. Erik _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-main
