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:
> 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
*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
>> 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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk