On 2/11/2012 10:46 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Julien Nitard<julien.nitard@m4tp.org> wrote:
The level of wrongness in this email (at least the quoted part above) is such that it is hard for me to keep calm. I am, admittedly, biased toward SVN. I can accept that DCVS systems like git may improve the workflow on projects like boost, but you're twisting facts. I am currently wondering whether you did that on purpose or not.
Sorry if this was too strong, I am not perfect myself and make mistakes too. I would like to keep the discussion in a cordial tone if possible.
Let's discuss a concrete case. Someone without write access to the SVN repo wants to contribute somde code. 1. Checkout 2. Edit code 3. Can't commit, so can't do any kind of local checkpoints 4. Can't push, so has to generate a patch 5. Upload patch to Trac (slow, requires browser, no tool support)
But Trac is globally available across all platforms without having to install anything. As is a wide variety of patch application tools.
Someone else wants to check out this patch 6. Download patch from Trac (slow, requires browser, no tool support) 7. Apply patch
DVCS would allow local commits (with commit messages), handy for larger patches DVCS would support publishing and retrieving these patches
What happens when the repo you "publish" the patch from goes away before anyone has a chance t get it? I.e. how is it different from uploading to a central server like Trac?
To me, these are clear and useful advantages.
But if that's the only advantage.. Does it seem worth it to incur the very high cost of switching a central tool? And, yes, I've asked the same question (in different words) in just about all the previous svn vs. <insert-you-tool-here> threads. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail