From: Gary K. <gw...@me...> - 2009-01-14 14:01:52
|
Hi Robert, As someone who never used subversion, I stand corrected (actually, I'm sitting). Now that you mention these features, I do remember that they are big win over CVS. I think the half-formed thought I was recalling was that now that good dvcs systems are here, moving from CVS to subversion seems like too small a step. I.e., that if one is going to move away from CVS, then it would be better to move to some DVCS. > I feel crotchety in the same way GP lisper does, not so much because I > dislike DVCS per se, but because of the babel of DVCS's. bazaar, git, > arch, darcs, what a pain. It annoys me when the ratio of the number > of > different DVCS's I need to know to the number of packages I actively > modify gets too close to one. Oh yes. I strongly agree. Sometimes it's "I want to try X but I'll be damned if I'm going to install another DVCS." > On a project by project basis, I think it would be nice to achieve the > following level of rationality: (1) admit that the use of DVCS's come > at a higher cost in terms of complexity (how significant the cost is > depends on the community --- e.g., to linux kernel hackers, the cost > would be essentially zero because it's already been paid); (2) > consider > what benefit a DVCS offers in exchange for the higher complexity cost > and (3) roughly speaking, subtract (1) from (2), and use that to > inform > the decision. Yes. |