[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: Why git instead of mercurial?

Yukihiro Matsumoto

3/26/2008 8:54:00 PM

Hi,

In message "Re: Why git instead of mercurial?"
on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:46:00 +0900, James Britt <james.britt@gmail.com> writes:

|I'm curious: When there was a move away from CVS, why didn't the ruby
|source tree go to git, instead of svn?

* git didn't work for Windows then
* tools for Subversion were more matured (at the time of migration)
* having explicit central repository is a good thing for Ruby

matz.
3 Answers

Robert Dober

3/27/2008 2:22:00 PM

0

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

> * having explicit central repository is a good thing for Ruby
Sorry to be bold for once Matz, but this sentence surprises me a lot,
why is a single point of failure a good thing?
What I like most about Mercurial (and distributed VCS in general) to
have my repository on 4 different PCs and 3 pendrives, while top is
not on all seven it is almost impossible to really lose data.
Never been afraid of this?
Cheers
Robert
>
> matz.
>
>



--
http://ruby-smalltalk.blo...

---
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Michal Suchanek

3/27/2008 3:28:00 PM

0

On 27/03/2008, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
>
> > * having explicit central repository is a good thing for Ruby
>
> Sorry to be bold for once Matz, but this sentence surprises me a lot,
> why is a single point of failure a good thing?

You can make as many backups as you like, there's nothing stopping you.

> What I like most about Mercurial (and distributed VCS in general) to
> have my repository on 4 different PCs and 3 pendrives, while top is
> not on all seven it is almost impossible to really lose data.

The single central repository is a workflow pattern - the address
which you officially publish and from which people check out the
sources.

While CVS or SVN enforce this pattern distributed VCSs do not.

Thanks

Michal

James Tucker

3/27/2008 4:45:00 PM

0


On 27 Mar 2008, at 14:21, Robert Dober wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org
> > wrote:
>
>> * having explicit central repository is a good thing for Ruby
> Sorry to be bold for once Matz, but this sentence surprises me a lot,
> why is a single point of failure a good thing?
> What I like most about Mercurial (and distributed VCS in general) to
> have my repository on 4 different PCs and 3 pendrives, while top is
> not on all seven it is almost impossible to really lose data.
> Never been afraid of this?

I have a copy in git, so does matz, and I'm sure there are more
people. These carry the full repo history, sufficient to rebuild an
svn repo, or just keep in git under such a situation.

I know of many people that have checkouts under svn.

I don't think there's a problem with potential loss for something this
widely used.

>
> Cheers
> Robert
>>
>> matz.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://ruby-smalltalk.blo...
>
> ---
> Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
> Ludwig Wittgenstein
>