troy d straszheim wrote:
in the previous thread, On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:49:14AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
[snip]
It depends where you're committing things. One of the best reasons for branching in a traditional version control setup is to give authors a place to check in their partially-finished (i.e. "broken") work. That _improves_ results in numerous ways. Obviously, there has to be some kind of check in the system for bad commits, but only those that a library author declares to be "good," and thus, ready for release.
Since we're talking about devel vs. stable and what the meaning of 'trunk' really is, I found Linus Torvald's google tech talk on git (which is source control for the linux kernel) to be *very* interesting (fairly entertaining as well).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8
He places a very high value on the ability to
* branch at any time * merge easily * commit/branch/merge locally (not in the 'central' repository)
Git sounds very interesting, but with boost in subversion, it is relatively simple for anybody interested as group or individuals to do many of these things now. Check out SVK, which extend the functionality of subversion on the client side with local repositories/depot, to add many of the features Torvalds talk about. I am not claiming anything about its quality or feasibility for others, as I am not a user, but it seems like a tool I would use rather than basic CVS/SVN. http://svk.bestpractical.com/view/SVKForSubversion http://perlcabal.org/~audreyt/svk-overview.png http://svkbook.elixus.org/nightly/en/index.html
Interesting the emphasis on git's being distributed... there is no 'central repository'.
Well, as long as everybody looks at one of the repositories as the "official", it does really not make that much of a difference, does it? You can have distribution of repositories forming implicit branches, even with the more tool inherent concept of centralized repository you find in the SVN/SVK model. -- Bjørn