[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

3/27/2008 3:37:00 PM

Hi,

In message "Re: Why git instead of mercurial?"
on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:21:50 +0900, "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@gmail.com> writes:

|> * 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?

Unless we abandon central repository model, we need an authenticated
repository anyway. And I didn't want to give up that clear and simple
model.

matz.
2 Answers

Robert Dober

3/27/2008 8:13:00 PM

0

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Why git instead of mercurial?"
>
> on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:21:50 +0900, "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@gmail.com> writes:
>
> |> * 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?
>
> Unless we abandon central repository model, we need an authenticated
> repository anyway. And I didn't want to give up that clear and simple
> model.
>
> matz.
>
>

To Matz and Michael
I guess it is just a completely different way to work, but I guess I
frequently do things differently so that should not alarm you :)
Just for your information Mercurial can use ssh authenticated
repositories so that would not be a problem at all.
I feel that sometimes people forget that a distributed CVS is also a
centralized one, just a matter of usage, right?

Cheers
Robert

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

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

Michal Suchanek

3/28/2008 9:51:00 AM

0

On 27/03/2008, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> To Matz and Michael
> I guess it is just a completely different way to work, but I guess I
> frequently do things differently so that should not alarm you :)

I started to use a distributed VCS for my work, and I like it. I can
set up a repo and make changes anywhere, and later push them anywhere
else.

However, for a larger project which you publish for everybody to see
and check out a more centralized workflow is needed. Only one repo is
the published "official" one.

> Just for your information Mercurial can use ssh authenticated
> repositories so that would not be a problem at all.
> I feel that sometimes people forget that a distributed CVS is also a
> centralized one, just a matter of usage, right?

Sure, but when you are used to centralization, and want it anyway
there is no gain in distributed VCS.

Thanks

Michal