On 3/21/2012 5:58 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Edward Diener<eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
I am pretty sure you can take an SVN repository and give users access to whatever part of it you want while restricting access to the rest. When you do that what is the difference from users having a DVCS to play with and their own branch of an SVN repository to manipulate ?
SVN requires the Boost repo admin to create accounts and set permissions.
I guess it takes a deep knowledge of molecular physics or string theory to do that.
DVCS doesn't, as you can push to your personal branches.
Conceptually in my mind it is the same thing. Yes, I recognize that psychologically the feeling that one has one's own local repository to play with, and then merge with other repositories, is enticing to users. Bu how is this different from:
It's not about concepts, it's about practice. Do you have experience with DVCSs? If not, you probably don't fully understand their concepts and what they allow in practice.
Wonderful. I don't know because I don't have experience, but no one can actually explain the technical benefits of these concepts.
1) Creating a local SVN repository and importing some branches from another SVN repository.
Seriously? Have you ever done that? How well did it work?
It worked with no problems. Why should it have problems ?
and/or
2) Having one's own branch of an SVN repository as one's own.
What I object to about the DVCS people is that they seem to assert that because DVCS has a model they like, where there is no concept of a central repository, that this is automatically superior in some non-practical and
Lots of people have experience with DVCSs. They tell you the advantages are practical and real.
If I tell you that the advantages of standing on your head 4 hours a day are "practical" and "real" would you find asking what this actually means a strange thing to do.
perhaps personal way. I do not doubt that DVCS systems may have some very good tools for merging together various local repositories into some other one(s), but what does this freedom really amount to ? The end-user feels better because it feels like one can work separately more easily and then join one's work with others, but in reality a central repository system has the same "tools". Furthermore merging work with others is NEVER as easy as people would like to think it is. I am so tired of hearing about how all this merging of code just automatically works, and works flawlessly. Who are we kidding ?
I can understand your feeling of separating Spirit from Boost and then joining back into Boost as you wish, and perhaps indeed a DVCS has better tools to do this than Subversion, but can you really say this is a matter of DVCS's being inherently better than a centralized SCCS in some way to enable this ? How is this process different than merging whole branches or parts of branches back into Subversion. However it is done merging is very hard and careful work and it is impossible for me to believe that a DVCS has something inherently about it that automatically makes it better.
Why is that impossible to belief? Because you don't have any experience with DVCSs? Some VCSs really are far better at merging than others.
I guess I am saying that on a practical basis a DVCS may be more flexible than a centralizes SCCS, but I see no inherent reason for this.
So because *you* don't see the reason, others can't benefit from a DVCS?
I do not see the reasons because no one appears to feel it important enough to actually enumerate them as technical arguments. All I get is what I have gotten from you: "try it, you'll love it, because I do and lots of others do." This is exactly what I wrote in my initial response. I do not care about what others do, but I am not doing anything unless I understand why I should do it.