Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-28 08:46:56

On 1/28/2011 3:24 AM, Anthony Williams wrote:
> Edward Diener<eldiener_at_[hidden]>  writes:
>
>> On 1/27/2011 12:52 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
>>> Independent of modularization, ryppl, or anything else, is it time to
>>> start a discussion on the main list about moving to Git?
>>
>> I hope such a discussion entails a very strong justification of why
>> Git is better than Subversion. I still do not buy it, and only find
>> Git more complicated and harder to use than Subversion with little
>> advantage. I fear very much an "emperor's new clothes" situation where
>> everyone is jumping on a bandwagon, because it is the latest thing to
>> do, but no one is bothering to explain why this latest thing has any
>> value to Boost.
>
> Indeed. Also, why git rather than another DVCS such as Mercurial or
> bazaar? Personally, I find Mercurial much easier to use than git, and it
> has the same major advantages (which are essentially common to all DVCS
> systems).
>
> Also, Mercurial works better on Windows than git does in my experience
> --- the git port for Windows is relatively recent, whereas Mercurial has
> supported Windows for a while. Since many of the boost developers use
> Windows I would have thought this was an important consideration. I
> haven't any personal experience of bazaar, so don't know how it fares in
> this regard.
>
> The chief advantage of a DVCS over subversion is that you can do local
> development with full version control (including history) whilst
> offline, and then push/pull when online. Also, you can do incremental
> local commits, so you have the advantage of VC, without pushing
> unfinished changes to the main repository. Branching and merging tends
> to be easier too.

I do not follow why these are advantages. I can make any changes locally 
for files using SVN without having to have a connection to the SVN 
server. Your phrase "incremental local commits" sounds like more Git 
rhetoric to me. How does this differ from just changing files locally 
under SVN ?