Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-21 08:25:46

On 20/03/12 15:54, 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...

You were given a pretty simple explanation in the previous post.
You cannot commit in SVN without updating first.

For an analogy in parallel programming, SVN requires a global barrier 
every time you need to do something, while Git doesn't.
Surely you can see that Git scales much better.

Now, if you do very large commits anyway, scalability at this level 
doesn't matter so much. But good practice is to make relatively small 
commits, one commit being a meaningful atomic feature. Small commits 
make it much easier to trace the development that has been done, to 
identify when problems were introduced, etc.

Git enables to do many small commits easily without synchronization with 
the master repository. It not only improves development time, but 
quality of the history as well.