[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: SVN is not truly distributed?

From: Zack Weinberg <zack_at_codesourcery.com>
Date: 2002-08-08 00:12:03 CEST

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 04:54:56PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Statements like "you need to design a distributed system to be
> distributed from day one" are sort of mythological. Who says? Why?
> It's not really an assertion that one can argue for or against based
> on the code --- it's more an assertion about the code's soul, or
> something. So I don't really know how to respond to it. Maybe a
> shrug is about right.
> Doesn't BitKeeper itself have some corner cases? Some approximations?
> Are those cut corners and approximations more or less annoying than
> those Subversion will inherit from its centralized-server origins? Or
> is it all just a matter of how much time you put into the details?

BitKeeper still doesn't support true branches ("lines of development").
This has been the number one missing feature for three years now. I
know what the gory details of that problem were in 1999; the situation
may have changed superficially, but I would bet it still boils down to
constraints on the implementation coming from the attempt to maintain
compatibility with SCCS.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 8 00:12:42 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.