Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 07:30:31

On 03/20/2012 12:03 PM, Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
<snip>
> Basic usage of git is different from basic usage of svn in some
> crucial aspects, but similar enough for anyone to be able to adjust
> even if you don't like it. It can definitely be learnt within a day.
> Why don't you just give it a try? It never hurts to learn something
> new.

*SIGH* you keep assuming that i never tried git. My last adventure with 
trying to use git was around half a year ago. I still have nightmares 
from that.

>> I'd argue that writing code is not done in the VCS. Be it writing a patch for an existing software or a completely new library. The complexity is in writing the code itself. Or applying the patch and verify it.
>
> I think I'm missing your point here. Is it just an aside, or did you
> mean to argue for or against a particular VCS?

No, I was trying to show how nonsensical the argument is that more 
patches get applied when switching to git or any other VCS, be it 
centralized or not. Maybe switching to a DCVS might increase the 
quantity of contributions. quantity != quality. And that is what i 
personally fear most. Tons of low quality "forks" sprouting out of the 
ground.
But really, the complexity of maintaining a boost library lies not in 
the version control system. With that being said, I am ready to admit 
that something like git might improve the handling of patches etc. but 
it should be clear that this is totally unrelated to actually applying 
and verifying those patches.

>> FWIW, I am the last person who will oppose such a change.

*Nuff said*.