When they say decentralized, that just means that everyone has the entire commit history (including any/all branches). Though I actually like the way you can download all of the changes locally. I like using the local client interface to look at individual changes immediately without connecting to the server (which is what Git and Mercurial do), rather than having to download them on an "as needed" basis (like SVN).
And you're incorrect about the "latest version". There's usually a "master" branch, which is equivalent to the "trunk" folder in SVN. You can also tag versions by simply creating a new branch. As long as people update their local commits and properly merge (which is necessary with SVN anyways), it's not that bad.
But personally, I find Mercurial easier to use than Git (at least the Windows client I use seems a little bit better).
Ultimately, this all comes down to what the actual developers of this project want to use.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I'v read more stuff about GIT.
Since WT2 won't be a project with more than ~ 2-5 developers, git may not be as useful as if we were over 10 users.
I prefer to have a repository not on my computer and somewhere safer.
I don't know if sourceforge can be a "dump" for GIT main repository.
SVN is simpler (IMO).
GIT seem better in many way, but for our current need. I encourage SVN.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Just want a quick poll of opinions on which we should use for the project.
Sourceforge have SVN.
I know svn.
svn server alway have the "lastest version".
I only know GIT in theory:
-GIT like svn but decentralized.
-Git never have "latest version" since everyone may have have changes.
When they say decentralized, that just means that everyone has the entire commit history (including any/all branches). Though I actually like the way you can download all of the changes locally. I like using the local client interface to look at individual changes immediately without connecting to the server (which is what Git and Mercurial do), rather than having to download them on an "as needed" basis (like SVN).
And you're incorrect about the "latest version". There's usually a "master" branch, which is equivalent to the "trunk" folder in SVN. You can also tag versions by simply creating a new branch. As long as people update their local commits and properly merge (which is necessary with SVN anyways), it's not that bad.
But personally, I find Mercurial easier to use than Git (at least the Windows client I use seems a little bit better).
Ultimately, this all comes down to what the actual developers of this project want to use.
I'v read more stuff about GIT.
Since WT2 won't be a project with more than ~ 2-5 developers, git may not be as useful as if we were over 10 users.
I prefer to have a repository not on my computer and somewhere safer.
I don't know if sourceforge can be a "dump" for GIT main repository.
SVN is simpler (IMO).
GIT seem better in many way, but for our current need. I encourage SVN.