On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 07:25:36AM -0700, Steven Grimm wrote:

quoted text
> Okay, my summary is slightly facetious, but that's basically the gist of 
> what he's saying: you should choose Subversion rather than a DVCS because 
> most of your users won't be smart enough to use the better tool.

An interesting point he brings up (which I think is totally bogus) is
(paraphrased): "DVCS systems encourage people to work in isolation and
then patch-bomb the upstream."

But I think it's quite the opposite. He compares two scenarios: in
$DVCS, the user forks, works quietly in their cave for a few weeks, and
then produces a result. With a centralized VCS, the user gets a private
branch, and people keep up with their work as it progresses.

This isn't realistic for two reasons:

  1. Contributors to projects now using DVCS systems _weren't_ using SVN
     or CVS in this way before (presumably because the effort in getting
     private branches set up in a central repository was too much -- if
     I want to hack on a project, I want to do it _now_, not after I
     have gotten approval to use the VCS by the maintainer).  Instead,
     they sat in their cave using primitive tools like 'diff' and
     'patch' until they patch-bombed the upstream.

  2. DVCS systems (well, git, at least) focus on workflows that allow
     for quick communication and code review. Patches are a first-class
     item in git, which means that
       - every change is on the mailing list for review
       - work-in-progress patches are easy to post, easy for reviewers
         to read, easy for reviewers to apply, and, if accepted,
         easy for the maintainer to apply

-Peff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html