Grant: That's what I meant with a 'mesh cloud'. It still needs to be stored somewhere. On a single place (that is hopefully available) or on every single system in a copy, constantly updating with the others (who are hopefully online and have a recent version available). If it's not stored somewhere, it is not available, no matter which type of distribution is used. In my opinion, a dedicated server (with some backups) is by far better than a repository that is or is not available and is or is not up to date. The fact that TortoiseSVN (and I guesst SVN itself does so too) keeps a working base together with the (actually altered) working copy makes it a somewhat distributed repository too, as every user has a certain repository revision (not necessary the newes, depending on the latest update) on its computer and can make DIFF or revert operations without any connection to the repository. Unfortunately there is no Linux version of Tortoise (only for SVN itself), but since both are compatible and linux users (at least the programmers) are usually fond of console usage... :)
Dmitry: Well, that's exactly what I do with TortoiseSvn: create a directory on a server. That's all. Tortoise is linked against SVN and uses its core engines, but that does not mean that it requires an SVN server or such. Everything is built-in to do the job on its own. Transparently. When working locally (or with a mapped network drive), simply right-click onto an empty folder and say 'create repository'. Then right-click again and check files in or out. It also works with URLs instead of local drives (which of course is more important for open source projects). You can use a Berkeley database server if available for the repositories, but simple file access is sufficient. Can't be easier. Even our DAUs in the production learned to use it, for getting the latest production snapshots, in a few minutes. JMGross ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ----- Von: Grant Edwards An: [email protected] Gesendet am: 28 Sep 2009 18:51:18 Betreff: Re: [Mspgcc-users] Developers: Bazaar branches On 2009-09-28, JMGross <[email protected]> wrote: > And for the need of a server, well, yes, sure. Every > repository needs to be stored somewhere. No, not really. > Without access to the storage place I cannot access the > repository. No matter whether it is a dedicated server, some > webspace somewhere or a mesh cloud. Some other revision control systems don't rely on a single, central server the way RCS, CVS, SVN do. Such systems are usually referred to as "distributed" revision control systems. Most open-source development projects tend to be moving away from the single-central-server model to the more distributed model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_revision_control ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ----- Von: Dmitry Zuikov An: [email protected] Gesendet am: 28 Sep 2009 18:56:36 Betreff: Re: [Mspgcc-users] Developers: Bazaar branches > And for the need of a server, well, yes, sure. Every repository needs to be > stored somewhere. Without access to the storage place I cannot access the > repository. No matter whether it is a dedicated server, some > webspace somewhere or a mesh cloud. > But it was just an idea. With everything else I looked upon (quick glances > only, admitted) it seemed to me I'd be > > more busy handling the repository than working with the project. When > choosing my tools, my top citeria > is always usability (and maybe price, which had lead me originally to mspgcc). Well, regarding to my opinion, DVCS are more easy to setup and use. In fact, they do not need any setup at all. Basically, all what you need to share a repository with DVCS, it's to create a directory on a server and assign the user/group. Comparing to SVN it's almost no-brainer.
