Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Philippe Vaucher (philippe.vaucher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-21 07:12:16

>
> Conceptually in my mind it is the same thing. Yes, I recognize that
> psychologically the feeling that one has one's own local repository to play
> with, and then merge with other repositories,  is enticing to users. Bu how
> is this different from:
>
> 1) Creating a local SVN repository and importing some branches from
> another SVN repository.
>

The amount of work to do that in svn compared to the amount of work to do
that with git/mercurial is ridiculous.

> 2) Having one's own branch of an SVN repository as one's own.
>

That could work, but it'll yield a repository where you have about 2-3
branches per developper (yes, people using git/mercurial often have lots of
features/tests branches) that nobody cares about. Also, storing test
branches on the public repo is just silly imho.

What I object to about the DVCS people is that they seem to assert that
> because DVCS has a model they like, where there is no concept of a central
> repository, that this is automatically superior in some non-practical and
> perhaps personal way. I do not doubt that DVCS systems may have some very
> good tools for merging together various local repositories into some other
> one(s), but what does this freedom really amount to ? The end-user feels
> better because it feels like one can work separately more easily and then
> join one's work with others, but in reality a central repository system has
> the same "tools".

Simply creating a branch and then merging it back was a nightmare with svn.
If you typed your command wrong, or did an error, then everyone suffered of
your mistake. You then had to correct it in a rush before it created
problems for others, etc.

With git/hg, when you do a mistake, you simply cancel your local merge and
redo it again until you did the right thing, then you push.

> I guess I am saying that on a practical basis a DVCS may be more flexible
> than a centralizes SCCS, but I see no inherent reason for this.
>

To be honest, I feel that all the people that "cannot see the advantages of
a DVCS" are people who either didn't try it, or tried it just enough to
reassure themselves it wasn't worth it. Any tool can suck if you're not
willing to *really* see what it's worth.

Philippe