Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Topher Cooper (topher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-22 12:57:13
On 3/22/2012 7:41 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> I can see what advantages a DCVS setup can bring. And I understand the
> implications. What I am still opposed to is a tool that makes screw
> ups, even if they just happen locally, possible.
> I think it does not speak for a tool that it is quite easily possible
> to get in trouble in the first place. Maybe that's just me. For now, i
> will resign from this thread and see what actually will get proposed
> and judge again then.
Errr ... is this an argument for or against svn, or just an aside
applicable to all the tools under discussion? I do think it is
undeniably true that any "trouble" one gets into by interacting
incorrectly with the primary, shared repository is more broadly damaging
than localized trouble, and, pretty much by definition, that is the
*only* kind of interaction one has with a CVCS. That encourages --
quite properly -- less frequent modification of the main repository, and
thus, for a CVCS any use of the repository. Furthermore, with the
alternative of more localized changes removed, the cost/benefit analysis
of when to modify the central repository would logically -- all other
things being equal -- shift at least a bit in the higher probability of
global damage direction.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk