Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-21 12:38:48

AMDG

On 03/21/2012 05:25 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> 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.
> 

Only if some of the files that you modify
have been modified in the repository.

> 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.
> 

This is only a problem in SVN if multiple
developers are working on the same files
at the same time.  I don't see this happening
a lot for Boost, given our total man-power,
average file granularity, and total code size.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe