On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:33:16PM -0400, 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)
Interesting the emphasis on git's being distributed... there is no 'central repository'.
yes, git is really powerful. it took some time to enter in my fingers, but i am now wishing to have something to be heavvy branched/merged.. :) i find it perfect for kernel development, but in many other contexts you end to use it as super-doped cvs/svn (probably it is just me burned with cvs/svn..). moreover, it is not clear (to me) how it behaves under windows, expecially with all those SHA1 digests and the crlf differences between unix/windows worlds.. cheers domenico -----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://www.dandreoli.com/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50