On Aug 15, 8:19 am, Richard Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > Your vehemence in support of Mercurial is quite evident. I don't know > the arguments for or against distributed version control. If it seemed > important I would reason the whole thing out and then I might come > down on one side or the other. However, it isn't important. What we're > doing here is going from a project with one or two commiters to a > project with five to eight commiters if that. It's hardly the kind of > expansion that needs this kind of thought put into project management. Our project management has just announced that it quits and let anarchy ensue, in my opinion that's an excellent time to think about project management and how to avoid this in the future. Part of avoiding this is not having a single bottleneck of source control/ group of people who are capable of holding up the whole. Making it easy for people to clone the source and pulling/pushing among themselves virtually guarantees that no matter what happens, it will move forward.
> But even if a change of source control would be good It's not good, it's long overdue > and even if it > would be good enough to upset the established mechanisms Let's stop the handwaving right there, using hg pull/push/up/commit instead of svn up/commit is not mentally challenging. > and even if > would be good enough to make potentially interested developers stray > from what everyone is familiar enough with to use we should still wait > to see if there is a problem. There is a problem. Right now people are patching trunk, these changes go in un-reviewed, at best somebody makes a post-mortem review and will revert them if necessary, not quite optimal. > It's not about hating DVCSs. It's not about the features we > might want to use. It's not even about fear of a "risky" change. It's > about caring about the source more than the source control. Because > without caring about the source the source control is really just > control... Telling, no? Look, I do care about the source a great deal. And *because* I do care, I propose not putting it into a shitty garbage bin like SVN and having a flat "free for all" commit process. I have left SVN (and centralized VCSes) behind a long time ago, and I'm not going to go back to the jumping trough hoops days of finding social/technical solutions to make SVN happy. The bottom line is that your single choke- point of control over the repository just collapsed in itself, and instead of rethinking how you can structure interactions, you continue to build the next train-wreck to happen. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
