[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: dVCS vs. CVS
Re: dVCS vs. CVS
Mon, 07 Jan 2008 23:45:27 +0100
Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:
>> 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.
> Sorry, but no. What makes it complicated are all the other things
> that you don't want to use. The things that are there, but you are
> forced to ignore.
You can shoot yourself in the foot with CVS, too. But it's easy to give
non-programmers a recipe how they can work with a dVCS as well as it is
possible with CVS now.
> It's a bit like saying Emacs is simple, because you can use it "just
> like" a very basic text editor.
But it's not much different than with CVS today. You can do much more
with it than only the usual up, edit, ci/diff cycle.
> Also, a dVCS's documentation is more complicated. Unless, of course,
> its writers write a special cut down version for "unsophisticated"
> users - Something they're hardly likely to, since they will want to
> encourage people to use it "properly".
At least git has a short "Everyday git" tutorial that explains the few
commands each role may use. If the dVCS we choose has no such
documentation, it won't be hard to write one ourselves.
>> > 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.
> So's Emacs. ;-)
But generally I'd say end-user applications attract more voluntary
programmers than libs and build tools.
>> 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.
> I can't honestly imagine that the VCS system in use is that critical a
> factor in attracting most new contributors.
Surely, it's not critical, but it's convenient. Not only for new
contributors, but for every programmer.
Take me as an example. I have some items on my todo list, but since my
time is quite limited, I don't even start to implement them, since when
I do so I cannot commit till it's finished. With a dVCS I would create
a new local branch for a task and work on it when I want. I could
switch back to the main branch to fix a bug or make a quick change
whenever I want.
(Sure, I can checkout emacs many times to simulate multiple local
branches, but that has other drawbacks.)
Re: dVCS vs. CVS, David Kastrup, 2008/01/07
Re: dVCS vs. CVS, Bastien, 2008/01/07
- Re: dVCS vs. CVS, Bastien, 2008/01/07
- Re: dVCS vs. CVS, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/01/07
- Re: dVCS vs. CVS, David Kastrup, 2008/01/07
- Re: dVCS vs. CVS, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/01/08
- Re: dVCS vs. CVS, Richard Stallman, 2008/01/09