Attila Kinali wrote:
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:41:52 -0500
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FWIW, Mercurial ("hg") or git is better for distributed development.
Subversion requires that everything be centralized, and you get to
dicker where THE central server lives, dicker about who have commit
privs, and to what.
I really wonder what's going on. Whenever someone mentiones that
project X is using svn, imediatly someone pops up and says that
svn is suboptimal for a distributed development. Do you really think
that everyone wants an absolutely distributed development where
everyone can have his own tree? Do you really think that there
is not someone out there who'd perfere a centralized solution?
I'm not trying to start a war here. I am simply speaking from hard-won
experience, and hoping others might benefit from that experience. I
used subversion from its unstable early days until 6 months ago, for all
my non-kernel minor projects. Subversion sucks for disconnected (laptop
on a plane) operation, and I spent way too much time managing
sub-developer permissions, commit triggers, and other nonsense.
With hg and git, it's a matter of a single email "hey dude, I have this
change you probably want" and I pull that change into my master tree.
If the public mirror of the master tree is down, I am not prevented from
committing the change.
I speak from pain of experience here :)
Feel free to ignore, it's only my $0.02 worth.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
