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

AMDG On 1/29/2011 3:02 AM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:08 PM, John Maddock wrote:

...

* As I see it Git encourages developers to keep their changes local for longer and then merge when stable. That's cool, and I can see some advantages especially for developers wanting to get involved, but I predict more work for maintainers of the canonical repro trying to figure out how to resolve all those conflicts.

What gives the impression that resolving conflicts is hard on git?

Nothing except that I do not trust any automated tool, no matter how smart it is, to do the merge correctly without manual review of every change. The tool has no knowledge of the semantics of what its merging.

It's easily one of the easiest things to do with git along with branching. And because branching is so light-weight in git (meaning you don't have to pull the branch everytime you're switching between branches on your local repo) these conflict resolution and feature-development isolation is part of the daily work that comes with software development on Git.

And having multiple maintainers maintaining a single "canonical" git repo is the sweetest thing ever. Merging changes from many different sources into a single "master" is actually *fun* as opposed to painful with a centralized VCS.

What does this have to do with whether the repository is centralized or distributed? In Christ, Steven Watanabe