On 03/01/2014 11:20 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Lists <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> All good suggestions. I'd prefer mercurial to either of Subversion
>> (central repo? Blagh!)
> A central repo is exactly what you want when you want one
> authoritative copy and you have a network to reach it.
>
Oh, it's often very useful to have an "authoritative" copy. We have a
few such beasts that are authoritative within their context.
When you are using a DCVS, you can take any arbitrary copy you want and
call it the "Central" repo. You can always commit to and pull from the
"Central" repo, just as you would with SVN. The bonus of using a DCVS is
that when you pull, you get the entire repo, so if your "Central" repo
server dies/crashes, you can just start using another one without
skipping a beat. Another neat trick is to daisy chain repos, where A is
the master of B is the master of C. B gets the changes from A, but not
C. C gets changes from A and B. This makes it trivial to try out new
features in a fork for a while before pushing changes in C back to B or A.
That you want to have a "Central" or "Master" repo is no reason set
things up so you have no ability to change your mind, IMHO. I cannot
think of any significant features that SVN offers that Mercurial does
not. We started with SVN before switching to Mercurial and there's no
way we're going back.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
