Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:52:25 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: brix@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Curious about SCM choice Message-ID: <20080628.235225.-233676791.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20080628073807.GB45690@tirith.brixandersen.dk> References: <4e571dd70806271037j59faed19y8d3e29423c9d8a2@mail.gmail.com> <1E7FB809-CFBE-4ED6-9F32-97C90359BBF9@cyberlifelabs.com> <20080628073807.GB45690@tirith.brixandersen.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20080628073807.GB45690@tirith.brixandersen.dk> Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@freebsd.org> writes: : On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 06:26:54PM -0700, Milo Hyson wrote: : > Can not the "decentralized" systems like Mercurial and GIT be used in a : > centralized fashion? Our internal experiments certainly show them to be : > every bit as capable as Subversion in this regard. Has your experience been : > different? : : They _can_ be used in centralized fashion, but they do not enforce : it. Subversion enforces a centralized development model. Well, hg requires one merge to the tip before committing to the tip, which has its own set of problems when used in a centralized manner. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080628.235225.-233676791.imp>