To answer your last question first, yes, commit authorization should be the same.
Mercurial (aka hg) and git are what I have some experience with, along with SVN and CVS - so this is from that context. Both hg and git are geared around branchy development with multiple people doing commits. As soon as you clone a repository, you've got the whole thing there on your disk. You can hop back and forth in the project's history without talking with the server. You can clone it from your disk again, without talking to the server. Since these are local operations, they are very fast. With subversion, going through history and changing branches requires server communication. Since you've got the repository local, you can make changes and commit them locally, then when you're satisfied with them, push them up to the server all at once. This is also handy if you want to hack on something but you're going to be offline - suppose you want to do a few different things to the source code, fix a bug, add a feature. In the SVN world, you'd end up with several files modified for different reasons and have to cherry pick commits to make a coherent history. With a local repository, you can commit each change in its context, then push them to another repository with a coherent history for free. One additional useful feature is that you can publish your repository, either temporarily hosted from your machine in a trusted environment, or set up something more secure for long term public hosting. This way a maintainer could go through your repo and cherry pick the patches they'd like to put in the main source archive, and they can do this with full project history on both your end and their end. As soon as they clone your repository, they have all the changes they need locally and don't need to hit your repository again until they want an update. These tools allow for more flexible development workflows while at the same time making it simpler and faster to branch and merge changes from many sources. And I'm not against SVN, it is an effective tool. -b On Jan 29, 10:13 am, Adam Bark <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24 January 2010 18:35, Ben Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Also, to open up a fun can of worms - now seems like a good time to > > move to a dvcs, particularly Mercurial since google code supports it. > > Are there compelling reasons to stick with SVN? I'd used git before > > this discussion came up in August, and have been working with both git > > and Mercurial since. A lot of the issue ports and backports would > > have been easier with one of these, due to the overhead in tracking > > down historical diffs to find out which things changed and when. I > > would personally prefer working with hg over SVN. > > I still don't really "get it" as far as dvcs's go can you explain it at all? > Does everybody that had rights on the SVN server get it on Mercurial? > > Cheers, > Adam. -- 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.
