On 3/22/2012 7:41 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
I can see what advantages a DCVS setup can bring. And I understand the implications. What I am still opposed to is a tool that makes screw ups, even if they just happen locally, possible. I think it does not speak for a tool that it is quite easily possible to get in trouble in the first place. Maybe that's just me. For now, i will resign from this thread and see what actually will get proposed and judge again then.
Errr ... is this an argument for or against svn, or just an aside applicable to all the tools under discussion? I do think it is undeniably true that any "trouble" one gets into by interacting incorrectly with the primary, shared repository is more broadly damaging than localized trouble, and, pretty much by definition, that is the *only* kind of interaction one has with a CVCS. That encourages -- quite properly -- less frequent modification of the main repository, and thus, for a CVCS any use of the repository. Furthermore, with the alternative of more localized changes removed, the cost/benefit analysis of when to modify the central repository would logically -- all other things being equal -- shift at least a bit in the higher probability of global damage direction. Topher