[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like

From: Piet van Oostrum
Subject: Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:35:28 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (darwin)

>>>>> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> (RS) wrote:

>>> I don't think it makes sense to compare these two different "commit"
>>> operations -- it's like comparing an apple to an orange tree branch.
>>> If you compare applies with oranges instead, the difference is
>>> much less.

>RS>     I think that the comparison is quite accurate: the commit does
>RS>     everything that a commit in CVS does. The difference in workflow
>RS>     is not in committing, it is in the fact that everybody has his own
>RS>     repository (and all of them are equal).

>RS> I think that is a confusing way to compare them.
>RS> It focuses on similarities in implementation
>RS> rather than on similarities in use and role.

In both cases committing means that you make a permanent record of the
state of your workspace in the repository. The difference is that in CVS
there is a central repository whereas in a DVC system each user has its own
repository. In the latter case, if the developers want some central
repository they have to designate one of them as the authoritative one.
This is a social issue; AFAIK none of them has a provision to dedicate one
of the repositories as the authoritative one. If you want your commits to
migrate to the central repository you would do a push for that. So in a
certain sense the push could count as a global commit. But this is
certainly not the only possible workflow.
Piet van Oostrum <address@hidden>
URL: http://pietvanoostrum.com [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4]
Private email: address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]