Re: [boost] DCVS vs CVS: call for constructivism

Subject: Re: [boost] DCVS vs CVS: call for constructivism
From: Pedro Larroy (pedro.larroy.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-27 12:06:38

I offer as a volunteer to migrate from the current subversion to
mercurial, as I have done it before.

Pedro.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Martin Geisler <mg_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Philippe Vaucher <philippe.vaucher_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>>
>>>> Simply saying that X is better because of some general reasons,
>>>> which do not apply IMO to actual usage. does not make me want to do
>>>> something different in programming and programming tools.
>>>
>>> How do faster operations, versioned patches, versioned local work,
>>> smaller average commit size and better merging not apply to actual
>>> usage?
>>
>> There's another advantage I forgot about: the ability to commit only
>> certain parts of a file.
>
> That's technically not a property of having a DVCS: you could also
> imagine committing part of a file with Subversion: save the current
> changes with 'svn diff', revert the file, apply part of the patch you
> saved, and commit before apply ing the rest of your patch.
>
> It just so happens that this feature was introduced in DVCS, I believe
> Darcs was the first tool to provide this feature, and since then
> Mercurial got 'hg record' and Git got 'git add -i'.
>
> It's a killer feature, though! :)
>
> --
> Martin Geisler
>
> aragost Trifork
> Professional Mercurial support
> http://www.aragost.com/mercurial/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost