James Sharpe wrote:
- Original message - [SNIP]What's the obsession over a DVCS?
I personally find that the workflow of a DVCS is better suited to frequent merges and frequent commits.
Well, a DVCS without excellent support for merge and private commits would probably be a disaster ;-)
Personally I find tools such as gitk useful in visualizing the progress of the project and I just in general feel much more comfortable with merging with a DVCS tool than with subversion.
What is needed is good merge management and merge tools--not necessarily git. Git does not really support Windows and in practical terms Boost would need someone to manage, support and host the master git repository anyway--who?. So the big difference between DVCS and centralized repository VCS for Boost does not strike me. Better native merge tools in svn is an upcoming feature. A good Boost svn-git gateway or use of SVK for private synchronized repositories and branches can mend many of the other svn shortcomings.
I get the feeling that most people working on boost haven't actually tried a DVCS, and I would encourage people to try it out if they haven't already.
Agree, but that is based on other DVCS traits than the false fact that merges are inherently hard with any none-decentralized VCS. Moreover, as far as suitability for Boost, I think this discussion is dead unless somebody come up with solid suggestions for tools that work nicely with existing Boost SVN. Alternatives to Boost SVN that is significantly better and is professionally supported in both transition and production is not likely to happen any time soon. -- Bjørn