On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:34:28 +0200 Jan Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx> wrote: > For one think I, like others already expressed, think difference should > be made between 'centralized' and 'star-topology'. Subversion is > centralized -- I don't think bzr is biased towards that kind of > centralization, though it provides tools (bound branches) to make it > easy. A star-topology assumes there is a central server from which the points of the start emerge. It is very much a centralized model and one that bzr is clearly optimized for. The difference between bzr and say cvs is that bzr provides offline abilities where checkins to the central server can be deferred by checking them in locally first. The bzr bias towards this model is implicit in its affection for revnos, which depend on a central repository to syncronize them for all the points of the star. [...] > On the other hand git is biased away from centralized (as in subversion > is centralized) in that it takes extra work to make sure you are always > synchronized (while bzr has bound branches to do the checking for you). > For open-source development, centralized is a wrong way to go, but > people use version control tools for other purposes as well and for some > of them staying synchronized is important. Please reconsider this point, Git can be configured to push every commit to a central server immediately. It's just that such a model is so inferior in almost every way, that it's not typically done. Sean - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html