[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: dVCS vs. CVS
From: |
Tassilo Horn |
Subject: |
Re: dVCS vs. CVS |
Date: |
Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:03:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Yavor Doganov <address@hidden> writes:
Hi Yavor,
> Lifting the barrier -
>
> dVCS (and the fact that there are many of them) are a nightmare for
> contributors who are not programmers, like translators and
> documentation writers. A dVCS is a sophisticated tool and a
> complicated concept that such people do not understand, or at least
> they do after substantial investment of time and sweat.
I disagree. With CVS the basic workcycle for non-members looks like
cvs up
<edit>
cvs up # To check there're no conflicts
cvs diff > foo.patch
<email patch to emacs-devel>
With git (or any other dVCS) it'd be something like
git-pull # pull from origin
<edit>
git-pull
git-commit -m "Foo bar"
git-format-patch origin
<email patch to emacs-devel>
So basically the only difference is that you have to commit to your
local repository. As long as you don't use more advanced functions of
the dVCS, there's nothing more complicated.
> Not a silver bullet -
>
> Autoconf, Automake, m4, Gnulib and other projects switched to Git some
> time ago. One would expect that there will be an avalanche of new
> contributors who were not volunteering only because they needed a
> modern VCS to go ahead.
I guess that's not a good comparison, because those are pretty boring
projects for most people.
Another project that switched from CVS to git recently is stumpwm, and
this project now has a hundfull of contributors now instead of only one.
Bye,
Tassilo
Re: dVCS vs. CVS, David Kastrup, 2008/01/07