>> Yes, that's a very good point (although in my experience it takes a >> very long time to do the initial download of the SVN repository). I'm >> not an expert on these systems, but I imagine the main downside (other >> than speed) of having SVN upstream is that you have to keep the >> history linear, > > That (non-linear history) is IMHO the biggest drawback of DVCS because that > means there is no way to link a particular build to the source status and you > cannot use globally valid build numbers.
Git (and I'm sure the others) provides a globally unique id for each revision. Isn't that sufficient? > But feature branches are as easily (IMHO even more easily since you can > closely monitor what others are contributing) worked on with SVN (routinely > used with R) so I'm not sure what DVCS would buy you. Feature branches are _much_ easier with git - to the point where some people suggest using a separate feature branch for every feature you develop. > AFAICS the only benefit of DVCS is that if you are on a remote island without > any internet connection you can accumulate multiple commits before merging > them back. I can't say that I desperately need that functionality ;). You have never worked on an airplane or other location without internet access? You must have lived a very privileged life ;) Hadley -- Assistant Professor / Dobelman Family Junior Chair Department of Statistics / Rice University http://had.co.nz/ ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
