Graydon Hoare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
> I can speak a bit about this; Paul's post oversimplifies for the sake > of expedience (which is fine, he asked me what to say and I told him > to oversimplify). I explicitly asked for monotone to be excluded part > way through the process, and there were a bunch of reasons. Thanks for sharing this. [...] > #2: Reducing the number of candidates. This is weird to mention, but > having 4 or more competing systems that are *almost* as capable as one > another means that you waste time comparing them when you could be > getting on with using them. That's not weird to mention at all. Making choices takes time, and if the choice is hard to make, there's a decent chance it'll take longer for no significant benefit. [...] > #3: I'm involved. Right, I thought that might well be significant. [...] > For whatever it's worth, I'm actually quite pleased with the > result. I don't really see these systems as competing as much as > co-evolving, and enabling massive increase in the rate of free > software evolution. In the early 2000s, anyone I described this sort > of tool to thought it was crazy and would never work. Merge *after* > commit? Branches with *multiple* heads? *Content addresses* in > history graphs? *No* canonical servers? Now all this is the > standard, and we're quibbling over who does it fastest. Who cares? > The battle is won: DVCS technology works fantastically well -- using > the model we pioneered -- and free implementations of it are > absorbing many major projects. That's cause for celebration. Absolutely: I suspect we live in the golden age of version control systems. (For what it's worth, I think Tom Lord deserves significant credit for that, just for demonstrating that it's not too hard to produce a working distributed VCS. Not that I'd recommend GNU Arch on anyone, but at the time it was a significant surprise to me.) And as you say, we're at the stage when suggesting a DVCS (with these strange features of non-linear history, etc.) as a replacement for CVS isn't regarded as insane; only a year or two ago subversion would have often been the major candidate. _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel