> Distributed VCS's can let you avoid network issues by working in isolation,
> but if your real goal is to allow a number of distributed team members to take
> advantage of each others updates as they are made you are going to have to
> deal with the network transfers anyway - and depending on the nature of the
> project you may really want a central authoritative repository.
If you at times simply have to work in isolation it's always better to be
able to commit your own changes into your own clone. Once you're back
online you can push your changes (also bundled together) back into the
main repository. So, using a DVCS doesn't necessarily mean that you won't
have a central repository, but it gives you more freedom to commit your
work without the need to have access to the central repo. This feature is
what I always missed in SVN. SVN is "only" a better CVS. I think the
future lies in DVCS, technology simply has moved on, faster than many
thought. (See Chia-liang Kao's post on "The Future of SVK" on SVK's
mailing list!)
That said, to avoid a flame war, which I did not mean to initiate with
my post, I want to point out that my repos are currently hosted like this:
CVS: 40% (still around due to compactness and speed)
SVN: 50% :)
Hg : 10% (some projects which need off-line access)
which is not likely to change in the near future due to good experiences
with all three of them. (Could be that git will come into play soon.)
Greets,
Marko
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2360859
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-06-10 12:10:54 CEST