Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Bronek Kozicki (brok_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 12:49:52
On 20/03/2012 14:54, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>> If ability to do distributed development and scalability are not
>> convincing arguments for you, I don't know what will.
> Nobody has shown to me that SVN is not capable of doing this - or Mercurial
> or ...put your favorite VCS name here...
I think points of distributed development (fast or offline work, freedom
to experiment) have been already expressed in this thread. As for
performance, hope you will trust http://git-scm.com/about (since I can't
be bothered to find benchmarks for you).
> Sure. The question is whether you need to switch in the first place.
I believe we do, and base this on trust I place on Dave's judgment on
this. He knows the pains of maintaining existing boostcode base, just as
many of us know pains of maintaining any large codebase in a central
source control repository.
>> Anyway I'm not going to try to convince anybody. There are people doing
>> the work to ensure future scalability of boost version control, I'm
>> grateful for that and not going to stifle the effort. There will be always
>> people complaining about necessity to unlearn old habits and learn new
>> tools, but I think in this case it's just this: necessity. I believe boost
>> code base simply won't scale without better version control.
> Your implicit assumptions related to my 'unwillingness' to learn new things
> are wrong and I don't know where you got those from.
Apologies if this was implied. I literally meant "people", not you.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk