> > > * Will a DVCS allow simpler operation as if we are still using a > > > centralized system like CVS or Subversion? > > Yes and no. There is nothing to prevent a formal workflow like that > in CVS/Subversion. However, the separation of "commit" into "record > && push to authoritative" leaves open the possibility of annoying > glitches until you get used to it, and even then it's easy to forget > to push or to forget that you've committed not-for-pushing stuff, etc, > etc. In practice it is probably simpler to use a dVCS-specialized > workflow like "record && push to candidate".
Bazaar offers the same semantic if you want to use it. In practice, when you use "bzr checkout" to get a branch, it becomes bound to the remote branch. When you commit to a local bound branch, the change is automatically pushed to the server, including the needed locking semantics, so the workflow is pretty much the same as if it were a Subversion checkout (hence the command name). Branches can be freely bound and unbound without effort, if desired. In the team I work on we've been using this for a while for the "authoritative" branches. So it's a distributed workflow otherwise, but at the end of the life cycle of a branch, we merge and commit to a bound branch pretty much like committing a change to Subversion. -- Gustavo Niemeyer http://niemeyer.net _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
