| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
Jonas Diemer wrote:
2008-12-15, 20:06:27 - Dick Hollenbeck:http://betterexplained.com/articles/intro-to-distributed-version-control-il lustrated/http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch04s02.htmlI think svn branches would be sufficient for our needs (we don't have 100s of developers potentially creating branches).
I agree. I just thought the article was nicely written because of the graphic illustrations. We would not and should not "run from" or "shy away from" Mercurial since it seems to do everything subversion does and gives more options without significantly more complexity.
I am not unhappy with subversion, and switching is not a priority, for the reasons you state. But if we had to switch sites or whatever for another reason, then I would say during such hypothetical switch, maybe we could keep an open mind to Mercurial.
The only thing I don't agree with you on is the equivalene of a branch and a remote/distributed repository. (The remote repository gives you version control when you do not have access to the internet. Like say a person was demented and wanted to write software on his/her vacation, away from the internet.)
Maybe the article was useful for folks working on other, larger projects. Dick
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
