On 6/7/11 6:52 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Stefan Sperling<stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:55:42AM +0200, Andreas Tscharner wrote:
>>> People here will hate me for this, but I think you should switch to a
>>> DVCS (Distributed Version Control System), like Mercurial or git.
>> If people hate you for making this suggestion then that's their fault.
>> Not every tool is made for every imaginable job.
>> The use case described is a good fit for distributed tools because
>> it is part of the problem domain they have been designed for.
> Actually, I don't think we know that. The security based refusal to
> allow electronic communications between the systems will hamper *any*
> multi-homed development effort. We need to find out the extent of that
> restriction to give good advice.
Yes, I have a hard time visualizing how any tool can help with concurrent
changes if one side doesn't stop while the merges happen both ways and the
results get back. Some may be better at permitting the teams to keep working
while the code diverges, but that's not necessarily a good thing. Particularly
if other forms of communication are equally hampered.
Received on 2011-06-07 15:13:42 CEST