Florent Daigni?re wrote: > Two points here: > 1) if we ever use a DSCM it *will* be in a centralized manner: > there will be a public tree devs will have to push to; I do not > think that the full history of each dev's individual > "working-copy" will be pushed there. I expect any branches that multiple devs work on will end up in the central server. > 2) How the SCM is used depends on people more than the tools; > see below The tools influence how people use them.
> > As said previously it depends more on people than on the tools you use; > Say we switch to git tomorrow... someone is willing to work on a new > feature or a bugfix... he will create a branch locally... work on it... > probably do some stupid mistakes (as we all do)... and when he has > something working he will push that back to the official trunk. At that > moment he will be given the choice in between "merging incrementally" > and "merging fully". The choice is still up to him and I bet that people > not committing often right now won't merge incrementally their work > either. Experience has shown that long-standing coders are *not* > numerous; if we ever have to look for the history of the merge, it will > be present only on the dev's working copy who is likely to have > disappeared since a while. > > NextGen$ > With git, both can exist - the full branch with all changes (in a developer-specific branch name) and the "fully merged" code in the trunk. E.
