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>