[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Subversion at LuaForge
- From: David Kastrup <dak@...>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:33:16 +0100
Please don't toppost with fullquote below. Reading order is top to
Asko Kauppi <email@example.com> writes:
> David Kastrup kirjoitti 21.11.2007 kello 11:18:
>> Miles Bader <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> "RJP Computing" <email@example.com> writes:
>>>>> (alternatively, if anyone knows gforge well, consider helping the
>>>>> community out :))
>>>> This would be a great addition. Subversion is the way to go!
>>> Well subversion is probably better than CVS in most ways, but there
>>> are many other choices too these days, often arguably better than
>> In fact, for projects with layered responsibility and versioning, a
>> distributed version control system is arguably better-suited since
>> everybody is then free to entertain his own forks and branches without
>> requiring upstream approval.
> However, how many such projects are there in luaForge? Normally,
> projects have -hopefully- at least one person in charge of them more
> than others.
That is exactly the use case for distributed version control systems:
those that are "less in charge" don't have to rely on the person "more
in charge" for handing them branches, or even on network connectivity in
order to do their own tasks.
> I'd feel going git would endanger getting even subproject
> fragmentation, wouldn't it? :)
Huh? I don't understand what you mean.
> And, since GForge seems to have svn support in later versions, case
Huh? Subversion is a centralistic, not a distributed version control
system. So how does this close the case?
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum