Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:27:38PM -0500 I heard the voice of
Andrew Dunstan, and lo! it spake thus:
This decision really belongs to the handful of people who do most of
the maintenance and live with most of any CVS pain that exists: such
as Tom, Bruce, Peter, Neil, Alvaro. Othe people have a right to
voice an opinion, but nobody should be pushing on it.

One thing that the DVCS crowd pushes is that that's _not_ the whole
story.  With CVS (or other centralized systems), the VCS is a
development tool for the few core people, and a glorified
FTP/snapshotting system for everyone else.  With a DVCS, _everybody_
gets a development tool out of it.

I don't really drink this koolaid, at least not to the extent of disavowing what I said above. There might well be good reasons for using a distributed SCM system, and if you look elsewhere in this thread you'll see me eyeing Mercurial, which is one such, quite favorably, and stating quite definitely that I hope we don't move to Subversion, which would be the main centralised alternative. But no matter what system is used, there will be a smallish number who will maintain the branches that bear our name, and I still think they are the people with the principal responsibility in the matter. I'm more interested in making things as easy as possible for Tom and Bruce than I am for anyone else.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to